STATE OF BIHAR Vs. B L AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Bihar is directed against the judgment of the Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, acquitting the respondents on the ground that the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were invalid and inoperative.

(2.) This case had a chequered career. The Central Bhowra Colliery is owned by Messrs. Central Bhowra Coal Co (Private) Ltd of which respondent No 1, namely, B.L. Agarwalla (mentioned as Banwari Lal Agarwalla in the petition of complaint) is the Managing Director. Respondent No. 2 was the First Class Certificated Manager at the relevant time. The said colliery was situated in Mahalla Mohalbani Police station. Jorapukur. This colliery was on two plots and one plot was commonly known as 88 bighas plot whereas the other was known was 100 bighas plot. Sowardih Colliery was to the adjoining east of the 100 bighas plot but the working of this colliery was discontinued in 1928 and it was subsequently filled with water. On 20-2-1958 a serious accident occurred at about 6 a.m. in the Central Bhowra Colliery and 23 miners appealed to have been trapped underground due to inundation. Respondent No. 1 gave a notice (Ex. 30) of this accident to the Chief Inspector of Mines at Dhanbad and mentioned therein the names of the 23 persons who were found to be missing. The case of the prosecution was that the Managing Director and the Manager acted in contravention of the provisions of Regulations 107 and 127 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 the working of the Central Bhowra Colliery was extended upto 21 metres in the property of Sowardih Colliery and this was done at the instance of both the Manager as well as the Managing Director. As a result of this working the water from Sowardth Colliery entered on 20-2-1958 into 3rd East Level of the No. 7 Incline in 100 bighas plot of Central Bhowra Colliery and flooded the area. At that time, 23 miners and loaders, a mining sirdar, a pump khalasi and a bailing mazdoor were undei ground of whom the last three ran out for safety but the 23 miners and loaders were drowned. The prosecution further alleged that the management ought to have stopped working in No. 7 Incline within 7-5 metres short of the common boundary with Sowardih Colliery. After this accident, the Central Government appointed a Court of Inquiry under Section 24 of the Mines Act (No. XXXV of 1952) to hold an inquiry into the causes of this accident. The Court found the two respondents responsible for the accident and the report was published in the Gazette of India on 19-7-1958. Subsequently, the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad Inspection Region No. 2, filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, on 13-10-1958 against Messrs. Central Bhowra Coal Co. (Private) Ltd., owners of Central Bhowra Colliery, represented by respondent No. 1, the Managing Director, and also against respondent No. 2 (the ex-Manager of the said Colliery), stating the facts relating to this accident and the offences committed by the respondents which were punishable under Section 74 of the Mines Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 14-10-1958 and summoned the two respondents for appearance on 17-11-1958.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 riled an application (Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 805 of 1958) in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, but it was rejected summarily on 21-11-1958. Being aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 1 filed an application in the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal and leave to appeal was granted to him on 8-12-3958. Accordingly he filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1959) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the learned Magistrate to record the evidence but not pass any final order so long the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. The appeal was ultimately decided on 10-2-1961 and the judgment in Banwari Lal Agarwalla v. State of Bihar is reported in AIR 1961 SC 849. Their Lordships remanded the case to the Magistrate for deciding the question whether there was consultation with Mining Boards constituted under Section 10 of the Mines Act, 1923. before the regulations were framed and, if so, whether such consultation amounted to sufficient compliance with Section 59. Their Lordships gave a further direction that if the conclusion of the Magistrate would be that there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 59 the regulations must be held to be invalid and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal; if, on the other hand, he would hold that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 59, then he should dispose of the case after coming to a conclusion on the evidence as regards the allegations made against the appellant in the petition of complaint. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.