R. S. BINDRA, A.J.C. :- This writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution by Xec Ayub against the order dated 6-10-1963 made by the Director of Industries and Mines, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, calling upon him (the petitioner) to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 plus an additional 20 per cent, by way of penalty for violation of the provisions of S. 98 of the Portuguese Mining Law incorporated in the Decree dated 20-9-1906 (hereinafter referred to as the Decree) raises the sole question whether the demand made is constitutionally justified.

2. Xec Ayub is the concessionaire of the manganese ore mine known as Zambutolem and situated at Verlem Sanguem Taluka. On 18-7-1963 an accident occurred at that mine which resulted in the loss of four human lives. It was Xec Ayub himself who reported the occurrence telegraphically to the Director of Industries and Mines (hereinafter referred to as the Director). On receipt of that telegram Shri Nadkarni of the Mines Department visited the scene of occurrence, collected the facts, and reached the conclusion that "the accident is mainly due to the reason that Xec Ayub did not obey and follow rigorously the respective exploration-plan of the mine", as enjoined by S. 98(1) of the Decree. When Shri Nadkarni's report was received in the office, the matter was examined by the Director who sent a communication to the Chief Secretary on 27-7-1963 wherein he expressed the opinion that Xec Ayub was liable to fine under S. 98(1) of the Decree and that he (Director) proposed imposition of fine in the sum of Rs. 20,000 plus an additional 20 per cent of that amount.

It appears that at the instance of the Chief Secretary the matter was referred to the Labour Commissioner of the Government for examining the validity of the proposal made by the Director in the light of the Indian Mines Act of 1952. The opinion given by the Labour Commissioner is not available on the present record but it looks from the note Ex. B dated 17th September, 1963, of the Director that the Labour Commissioner did not share his opinion. The Director, however, stuck to his view and in his aforementioned note suggested that the papers be sent to the Legal Adviser of the Government for opinion. The Legal Adviser Shri Kant Desai closely scrutinised the relevant provisions of law and in his detailed note expressed the view which accorded with that of the Director.

When the Labour Commissioner was apprised of this view of the Legal Adviser, he dropped his objection against the proposal of the Director. The papers were, therefore, once again placed before the Chief Secretary who on 6-10-1963 made a brief noting which reads "You may now proceed with the proposed fine." On getting the clearance from the Chief Secretary, the Director sent a note to the Administrative Officer of Sanguem Taluka on 14-10-1963 asking him to serve a notice on Xec Ayub calling upon the latter to pay within 15 days from the date of service of the notice a sum of Rs. 20,000 plus another amount of Rs. 20 per cent by way of penalty for infringement of Art. 98 of the Decree. Immediately on receipt of that notice Xec Ayub made frantic representations to various dignitaries of the Government including the Administrator complaining lack of any justification for imposing the fine on him and praying that he should be exonerated from that penalty. However, his representations were turned down one after the other and it was then that he instituted the present petition.

3. Xec Ayub denied categorically that he was to blame in any manner for the unfortunate occurrence in the mine. He also pleaded that the fine had been imposed on him under the provisions of law which had been repealed by the date on which the fine was inflicted on him, and made grievance of the fact that the procedure prescribed by the Indian Mines Act of 1952 had not been followed before the impugned order had been passed. Another substantial point raised by him was that the fine had been impo