1. Criminal proceedings under Section 74 of the Mines Act, 1952, for contravention of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 — Challenge to the validity of the regulations and Section 76. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th February, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I.; S.K. DAS, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJGAOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Banwarilal Agarwalla,. Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. C. Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates with him) for Appellant, M/s. R. Ganapathy 850 Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondents.
Advocates:
G.S.PATHAK, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BANERJEE
G.S.PATHAK, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BANERJEE
The requirement to consult the Mining Board before publishing regulations under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, is mandatory. The existence of a specific emergency exception under Section 60 confirms that non-compliance in ordinary circumstances renders the regulations invalid.
Headnote:(A) Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 59(3) and 60 - Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 - Mandatory vs. Directory provisions - Whether the requirement to refer draft regulations to the Mining Board before publication is mandatory - To decide if a provision is mandatory or directory, the court must consider legislative intent, the language used, the scheme of the statute, the intended public benefit, and the risk of contravention (Para 6) - The language "shall be referred" and "shall not be published until" is emphatic and designed to ensure that regulations affecting mine safety and economy are thoroughly examined by a representative Board (Paras 7, 8, 10) - The existence of Section 60, which provides a specific mechanism for bypassing consultation during emergencies for a limited period, reinforces the conclusion that the general procedure under Section 59(3) is a prerequisite for the validity of regulations (Paras 12, 14, 15) - Provisions in Section 59(3) are held to be mandatory (Para 19).
(B) Mines Act, 1952 - Section 76 - Interpretation of "any one" - The term "any one" in the context of liability for offences is interpreted as "every one," meaning every shareholder of a private company and every director of a public company owning a mine is liable to prosecution; hence, no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution occurs (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
A director and shareholder of a private company owning a colliery was prosecuted under the Mines Act, 1952, following a fatal accident. The accused sought to quash the criminal proceedings on two grounds: first, that the provision making directors and shareholders liable violated the right to equality under the Constitution, and second, that the regulations under which he was charged were invalid because they were framed without the required reference to the Mining Board.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the requirement for consultation with the Mining Board under Section 59(3) is mandatory. However, as the respondents claimed that consultation had taken place with boards constituted under a previous act, the court found insufficient material to determine if such consultation satisfied the requirements of the 1952 Act.
Issues: (1) Whether the interpretation of "any one" in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, violates Article 14 of the Constitution; (2) Whether the requirement to refer draft regulations to the Mining Board under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, is mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the emphatic language of Section 59(3), combined with the legislative scheme and the specific emergency exceptions provided in Section 60, indicates that consultation with the Mining Board is a mandatory condition precedent for the validity of regulations. Non-compliance in non-emergency situations renders the regulations invalid.
Result: Appeal disposed of with a direction to the magistrate to determine if consultation with boards constituted under the 1923 Act amounted to sufficient compliance with Section 59, and to act accordingly regarding the validity of the regulations and the acquittal of the accused.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- quashing of proceedings (Para 1)
-
criminal procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to Section 76 as violating Article 14 — Contention that regulations are invalid for lack of mandatory reference to Mining Boards under Section 59(3), Mines Act, 1952. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Analysis of legislative intent, emphatic language, and public welfare to determine if procedural requirements for framing regulations are mandatory — Evaluation of Section 60's emergency provisions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Provisions requiring consultation with Mining Boards under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, are mandatory for the validity of the regulations. (Para 19 )
5. Matter remanded to the magistrate to determine if consultation with Mining Boards under the 1923 Act occurred and if such consultation satisfies Section 59. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. How is the term any one in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, interpreted regarding the liability of company officials?
The term any one is interpreted as every one, meaning every shareholder of a private company and every director of a public company owning a mine is liable to prosecution. (Para 3 )
7. What criteria are used to determine whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory?
The court determines legislative intent by considering the actual words used, the scheme of the statute, the intended public benefit, and the material danger to the public caused by contravention. (Para 6 )
8. Is the requirement to refer draft regulations to the Mining Board under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, mandatory?
Yes, the provision is mandatory. The emphatic language and the existence of a separate emergency procedure under Section 60 indicate that consultation is a prerequisite for the validity of regulations. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : On February 20, 1958, there occurred in the Central Bhowra Colliery, in Dhanbad in Bihar an accident as a result of which 23 persons lost their lives. After an inquiry under S. 24 of the Mines Act, 1952, into the causes of and the circumstances attending the accident, and the publication of the report of the inquiry, a complaint was prepared by the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, under the direction of the Chief Inspector of Mines Dhanbad, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, against the appellant for an offence under S. 74 of the Mines Act, 1952, for contravention of regulations 107 and 127 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The Central Bhowra Colliery belongs and belonged at the relevant date to a private company, viz., M/s. Central Bhowra Colliery Co., Private Limited. The appellant is and was a shareholder and a director of this company. After the Sub-Divisional Officer took cognizance of the complaint and issued processes against him, the appellant made an application to the Patna High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of an appropriate writ for quashing the criminal proceedings. This application was summarily dismissed. It is against that order of dismissal that this appeal has been filed by special leave obtained from this Court.
2. The two main grounds on which the prayer for quashing the proceedings was based were: (1) that S. 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, in pursuance of which the appellant, who was not himself the owner of the colliery company, but only one of the directors and shareholders has been prosecuted, is void as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution; (2) the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, are invalid having been framed in contravention of S. 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. These two contentions were also urged before us in appeal.
3. The first contention is based on an assumption that the word "any one in S. 76 means only "one of the directors, and only one of the shareholders . This question as regards the interpretation of the word "any one in S. 76 was raised in Cr. Appeals. Nos. 98 to 106/59, Chief Inspector of Mines, etc. v. Karam Chand Thapar, (AIR 1961 SC 838) and it has been decided there that the word "any one should be interpreted there as "every one . Thus under section 76 every one of the shareholders of a private company owning the mine, and every one of the directors of a public company owning the mine is liable to prosecution. No question of violation of Art. 14 therefore arises.
4. As regards the other contention that the regulations are invalid the appellant s argument is that the provisions of S. 12 and S. 59 of the Mines Act, 1952, are mandatory. Section 12 provides:-
"1. The Central Government may constitute for any part of the territories to which this Act extends, or for any group or class of mines, a Mining Board consisting of-
(a) a person in the service of the Government, not being the Chief Inspector or an Inspector, appointed by the Central Government to act as Chairman;
(b) the Chief Inspector or an Inspector appointed by the Central Government;
(c) a person, not being the Chief Inspector or an Inspector, appointed by the Central Government;
(d) two persons nominated by owners of mines or their representatives in such manner as may be prescribed;
(e) two persons to represent the interest of miners, who shall be nominated in accordance with provisions laid down in the section.
5. Section 59 empowers the Central Government to make regulations consistent with the Act for all or any of the purposes mentioned therein, while S. 58 empowers the Central Government to make rules consistent with the Act for all or any of the purposes mentioned therein. Section 59 after providing in its first sub-section that the power to make regulations and rules conferred by sections 57 and 58 in subject to the condition of the regulations and rules being made after previous publication provides in its third sub-section further conditions as r
