Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) If the jurisprudence of remedies were understood and applied from the perspective of social efficaciousness, the problem raised in this appeal would not have ended the erroneous way it did in the High Court. Judges must never forget that every law has a social purpose and engineering process without appreciating which justice to the law cannot be done. Here, the socio-legal situation we are faced with is a colliery, an explosive, an accident, luckily not lethal, caused by violation of a regulation and consequential cancellation of the certificate of the delinquent shot-firer, eventually quashed by the High Court for processual solecisms, by a writ of certiorari.
(2.) We may state at the outset that the learned Solicitor General agreed that the appellant, the Board of Mining Examination, would be satisfied if the law, wrongly laid down by the High Court, were set aside and declared aright and he was not insisting on the formal reversal of the order affecting the respondent (who is unrepresented before us). We proceed on that footing.
(3.) The few necessary facts may be narrated to bring up the legal issue in its real setting.;