9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, under Article 14 of the Constitution: The appellant argued that Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, which allows for the prosecution of any shareholder or director of a company owning a mine, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention was based on the interpretation that "any one" in Section 76 means only "one of the directors, and only one of the shareholders." However, this interpretation was previously addressed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106 of 1959, where it was decided that "any one" should be interpreted as "every one." Thus, under Section 76, every shareholder of a private company and every director of a public company owning the mine is liable to prosecution. Consequently, no violation of Article 14 arises. 2. Validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952: The appellant contended that the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were invalid as they were framed in contravention of Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. Section 59(3) mandates that before any regulation is published, it must be referred to every Mining Board concerned, and the regulation shall not be published until each Board has had a reasonable opportunity to report on its expediency and suitability. It was undisputed that no Mining Board as required under Section 12 had been constituted when the regulations were framed, and thus, no reference to any Board occurred as required under Section 59. The Court analyzed whether the omission to make such a reference invalidates the regulations. It emphasized the legislative intent behind the statutory provisions, considering the language used, the scheme of the statute, the intended public benefit, and the material danger to the public from contravention. The Court noted that the language of Section 59(3) is emphatic, indicating the legislature's anxiety to ensure that regulations are published only after consulting the Mining Boards. This consultation is crucial as the regulations heavily impact the actual working of mines, affecting safety, employment, and operational efficiency. The Court acknowledged that emergencies might necessitate the framing of regulations without delay, which is addressed in Section 60 of the Act. Section 60 allows for regulations to be made without previous publication and reference to Mining Boards in cases of apprehended danger or conditions likely to cause danger, provided the regulations do not remain in force for more than two years (later amended to one year). The Court concluded that the provisions of Section 59(3) are mandatory, and non-compliance would result in the invalidity of the regulations. However, it was not clear whether the Mining Boards constituted under the Mines Act, 1923, were functioning and consulted when the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were framed. The Court directed the sub-divisional magistrate to determine whether there was consultation with the Mining Boards under the 1923 Act and if such consultation amounted to sufficient compliance with Section 59. If the magistrate finds non-compliance, the regulations would be invalid, entitling the accused to an acquittal. If there was sufficient compliance, the case should proceed based on the evidence. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, based on compliance with Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. The criminal proceedings will continue based on the magistrate's findings regarding the consultation with the Mining Boards.
|
