Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) The four petitioners who are in charge of the working of the mine owned by the colliery known as Salanpur "A" Seam Colliery in the District of Burdwan, are being prosecuted for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Regulation 127(3) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, framed under the Mines Act, 1952 (32 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act.) By their petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray that an order or writ in the nature of prohibition should be issued quashing the said criminal proceedings on the ground that the said proceedings contravene Art. 20(1) of the Constitution and as such, are void. To this petition have been impleaded as opponents I to 4 the Union of India, the Chief Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad (W.B.), the Regional Inspector of Mines, Sitarampur and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Asansol, respectively. The prosecution of the petitioners has commenced at the instance of opponents 2 and 3 and the case against them is being tried by opponent No. 4. The petitioners contention is that Regulation No. 127 (3) whose alleged contravention has given rise to the present proceedings against them is invalid, ultra vires and inoperative and so the prosecution of the petitioners contravenes Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. It is on this basis that they want the said proceedings to be quashed and ask for an order restraining opponents 2 and 3 from proceeding with the cave and opponent Now from trying it. The case in question is C. 783 of 1961 pending in the court of opponent No.4.
(2.) Regulation 127 (3) is a part of the Coal Mines Regulations framed by opponent No. 1 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S.57 of the Act, the same having been previously published as required by sub-sec. (1) of S. 59 of the said Act. Regulation 127(3) provides that no working which has approached within a distance of 60 metres of any disused or abandoned workings (not being workings which have been examined and found to be free from accumulation of water or other liquid matter), whether in the same mine or in an adjoining mine, shall be extended further except with the prior permission in writing of the Chief inspector and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein. There is a proviso and explanation attached to this provision, but it is unnecessary to refer to them The case against the petitioners is that they have contravened the provisions of Regulation 127(3) in that they extended the working of the mine further than the permitted limits without the prior permission in writing of opponent No. 2. The petitioner's case is that this Regulation is invalid and inoperative and so, its contravention cannot validly be made the basis of their prosecution having regard to the provisions of Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution.
(3.) According to the petitioners, opponent No. 1 is no doubt conferred with the power of making Regulation under S.57 of the Act, but S.59(3),as it stood at the relevant time, has imposed an obligation on opponent No. 1 that the draft of the said Regulations shall not be published unless the Mining Boards therein specified have had a reasonable opportunity of reporting to it as to the expediency of making the Regulations in question and as to the suitability of its provisions. The petitioners allege that at the relevant time, when the Regulations were made in 1957, no Mining Boards had been established under S. 12 of the Act. Three Boards had been established under S.10 of the Indian Mines Act of 192; but as a result of the subsequent amendments made in the provisions of S. 10 the composition of two of the said Boards became invalid with the result that two of them could not be treated as Boards validly constituted. These invalid Boards were the Madhya Pradesh Mining Board and the West Bengal Mining Board. A third Board existed at the relevant time and that is the Bihar Mining Board. This Board had been constituted on the 22nd February, 1946 under S.10 of the earlier Act as it then stood. The petitioners' case (supra) is that it was obligatory for opponent No.1 to consult all the three Boards and since two out of the three Boards were not properly constituted, the fact that reference was made to the individual members of the said two invalid Boards did not satisfy the requirement of S.59(3). According to the petition, a reference was made to the Bihar Mining Board, but the Board did not make a report to opponent No.1 as a Board but its individual members communicated their opinions to opponent No.1. Therefore, on the whole, S.59 (3) had not been complied with and that makes the whole body of Regulations issued in 1957 invalid and inoperative. That, in brief, is the basis on which the petitioners want the criminal proceedings pending against them to be quashed.;