JudicateMe
VOLUME I
_____________________________ a- Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952
i.e he was not the owner but a
BANWARI LAL V. STATE OF shareholder and director.
BIHAR1 b- Secondly these invalidly framed
_____________________________ against section 59(3)
_____________________________
The above two mentioned grounds were
By, Shaila Pathak urged.
From, Sai College of Law, Jhansi
3- The first ground which was used had
assumed the word “any one” which
according to section 76 means any one
FACTS:
of the director or shareholder which
1- On 20.02.1958 an accident took place in
lead to the interpretation that “any one”
the Central Bhowra Colliery in
should be replaced with “everyone”
Dhanbad in Bihar in which 23 people
thus under 76 now everyone would be
lost their life. An enquiry was held U/S
liable which would lead to no violation
24 of the Mines Act, 19522, which saw
of article 14.
the reasons due to which the collision
4- Section 59 gives the power to the
happened and the same was published.
Government to make regulations while
A complaint was filed by the Regional
Section 58 gives power to the
Inspector of the Mines, by the command
Government to make Rules which are
of the Chief in the court of the Sub-
consistent with the Act for any purposes
Divisional Officer against the Appellant
mentioned.
U/S 74 of the Mines Act for the
5- There was no dispute earlier when the
contravention for the regulation of 107
regulations were framed but the
and 127 of the Coal Mines Regulations,
question to whether the Omission
1957. This colliery belonged to a
whether to make these rules invalid was
private company named M/S Central
taken up again and again by the courts
Bhowra Colliery Co. Private Limited.
it is very difficult to come to any
And the Appellant in this case is the
conclusion whether any such rules is
shareholder and the director of the
mandatory or not because we cannot
Company. After the Officer took
figure out the consequences
cognizance and issued processes
beforehand.
against the Appellant, he then filed an
6- It is correctly stated that before
application to the Patna High Court U/A
publishing any rules or regulations they
226 for issuing a proper writ and to
are first send to the concern authorities
quash the criminal proceeding against
to be checked then it gets published.
him. His application was dismissed for
7- Language plays a very important role as
quashing and it was against the order of
it helps to determine whether the
dismissal of the court.
requirement given is either directed to
2- Grounds which were used for the
follow or Mandatory to follow.
dismissal were:
8- The view of Legislature is that the
Mining Boards should have been given
1 2
Air 1961 sc 849 the mines act,1923
[Link]
2 VOLUME I
an opportunity to look into what rules said above that inconvenience which
and regulations have been formed and has been caused by section 59(3) is
then express their opinions over it removed by the provisions of section 60
before they get finalized as they are the and on the other hand to hold the
one who would know better than the regulations which may be made valid
any authority as to what they face without following the procedure is also
regularly etc. likely to be harmful to the public
9- Now let’s understand this matter from interest.
another perspective: what will happen
to the public welfare if Section 59 The above reasons are enough to make
would invalidate a regulation, sure that the provisions laid down in
emergencies would arise just to protect section 59(3) are compulsory
the citizens these rules and regulations
are framed as soon as it can be and to 14- Also to take in consideration is that
avoid the time lost and are shared with when these new rules and regulations
the Authorities so that they would were formed and compiled with the
approve it. Coal Mines Regulations,1957 3 were
10- After all the Examination which is done they discussed with the Mines Boards.
by the Mining Board related to the Rule It was said on the behalf of the
and Regulations formed by the Respondent that the Mining Boards U/S
Legislature are now validated. 10 of the Mines Act, 1923 were
11- Adding more to this that if some continuing to operate at the time these
changes has been done by the regulations were framed and that there
Legislature without consulting the was full consultation with these Mining
Authorities concerned and have Boards before these regulations were
handled the situation well so the framed.
regulation so made shall not remain in 15- In the conditions, the best possible
force for more than 2 years which by the course, as we would like to think, and
amendment in 1959 had made it to 1 then to coordinate that the criminal
year. procedures pending in the Court of the
12- Importance was given on the Sub-Divisional Justice be discarded by
Respondent’s fact which stated that him or some other Judge to whom the
Section 59 does not require the that the case might be moved in agreement with
regulation must have the concurrence of lawyer and after choosing the question
the Mining Boards and State of UP v. whether there was discussion with
Manbodhan Lal Srivastava pointed out Mining Sheets comprised under section
that “the requirement of the 10 of the Mines Act4, preceding the
consultation with the commission does guidelines were framed and, if along
not extend to making the advice of the these lines, regardless of whether such
commission on these matter binding to discussion added up to adequate
the government ” it is true that the court consistence with section 59, If his
did not give enough weight to this decision is that there has not been
circumstance but in others consistence with the arrangements of
circumstances they had different views section 59 the guidelines must be held
and opinions. to be invalid and the charged would be
13- In this present case there is no scope of qualified for a quittance; if, then again,
applying the same principle here of the he holds that there has been adequate
directory nature of section 59(3) as it consistence with the arrangements of
3 4
Coal Mines Regulations,1957 The Mines Act,1923
[Link]
3 VOLUME I
Section 59 he ought to discard the case
in the wake of arriving at a resolution on
the proof as respects the charges made
against the appealing party in the
request of grievance.
16- On the above reading of the Judgment
what I infer is that if any changes or
new Rules or Regulations need to be
made it should be firstly taken into
consideration that the Legislature first
need to get in touch with the concern
authority and they should discuss with
them then they should express their
views and opinions and not to express
their own opinions and views on the
authorities because it can be seen that
Legislature being the Bigger and Higher
Authority they might not be questioned
by any-other Authority with whom
they are discussing, Secondly even if
the Legislature is making any changes
and if those changes are not harming the
Public then those changes can be made
permanent by having a discussion with
the Authorities who are concerned.
[Link]
