CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION & ANOTHER versus RAMJEE

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 03-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
904 
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION & 
ANOTHER 
v. 
RAM JEE 
February 3, 1977 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Coal Mines Regulations-Regulation 26-lnterpretation of. 
Rules of natural justice-Concept of reasonably opportunity cannot be fitted 
into a rigid 111011/d-Need for a strict liability-Code for subterranean occupa· 
__,
lions. 
Under regulation 26(1) if, in the opm1on of the Regional 
Inspector, 
a 
person to whom an Overman's, Sirdar's, Engine-driver's, Shot-firer's, or Gas-
testing Certificate bas been granted is incompetent or is guilty of negligence or 
misconduct in the performance of his duties, he may, after giving th<' person 
an opportunity to give a written expla·nation, suspend his certificate by an order 
in writing. U/r 26(2) he shall within a week of such suspension report the fact 
to the Board together with all connected papen; including the explanation, if 
any received from the person concerned. U/r 26(3) the Board may, after such 
inquiry as it thinks fit, either confirm or modify or reduce the period of suspen-
sion of the certificate, or cancel the certificate. 
The respondent, a shot-firer in a colliery, violated the provisions of the Coal 
Mines Regulations by entrusting his risky, technical work to an unauthorised 
person which resulted .in an accident 
injuring 
one 
Bhadu. 
The 
Regional 
Inspector u/r 26(1) gave him an opportunity for an explanation in writing and 
after· considering the materials before him 
forwarded 
the 
papers 
to 
the 
Chairman of the Board together with a recommendation for cancellatll)n ef. the 
certificate under Regulation 26(3 ). 
The Board bestowed its judgment on !he 
materials gathered which included the delinquent's admission, and cancelled the 
shot-firing certificate. · The High Court allowed the writ petition assai.ling 
the 
said orders of cancellation of the licence and held : (1) The Board had 
no 
jurisdiction since the Regional Inspector did not suspend the 
certificate 
first 
before reporting (2) The Regional Inspector had no power to recomme.n_d but 
only to report and so the Board's order influenced by the recommendation was 
bad in law and (iii) the Board should have given a fresh opportunity to be 
-?---
hcanl before cancellation of the certificate and its absence 
violated 
nau:.ral 
' 
justice, voiding the order. 
Accepting the Court, 
HELD : (1) Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract 
wings in the jural void. Its functional fulfilment a~ 'social engineering' depends 
on its scrutinized response to situation, subject-matter and the complex of 
realities which require ordered control. A holistic understanding is simple justice 
to the meaning of all legislations. 
F1:agmentary grasp of rules ca•n misfire or 
even backfire, as in this case. [906 H, 907 A] 
(2) The judicial key to construction is the composite perception of the daha 
and the dalli of the provision. To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and 
miss the soul of the Regulation. [909 A-BJ 
(3) Over-judicialisation can be subversive of the justice of the 
law. To 
invalidate the Board's order because the Regional Inspector did not suspend the 
certificate is a fallacy.· Tbe Board's vower is independent and is ignited by 
' 1 
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MINING v. RAMJEE (Krishna Iyer, !.) 
905 
!he report, which. exists in this case, of the Regional Inspector. There is an 
A 
overall duty of oversight vested in the board to enforce observance of mies of 
safety. [909 DJ 
( <:) To set aside the order on ihe ground that the Regional Inspector had 
no power to recommend but only to S!'Spend and report that his recommenda· 
lion influenced the Board's order is to enthrone a processual nicety do dcihrone 
plain justice. Suspension, on a-n enquiry, predicates a prior prima-facie finding 
of guilt and to make that known to the Board implicitly conveys a recommen-
B 
dation. The difference between suspension plus report and 
recommendatory 
report is little more than between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. 
Recommenda-
tions are not binding but are merely raw materials for consideration. 
Where 
there is no surrender of judgement by the Board to the recommending Regional 
Inspector, there is no contravention of the cannons of natural justice. 
[909 E-F, 9100-E] 
( 5) Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial 
cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the 
ma11 
proceeded 
against, the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.