JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY versus TANDUR & NAYANDGI STONE QUARRIES (P) LTD.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 08-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY 
v. 
TANDUR & NAY ANDGJ STONE 
QUARRIES (P) LTD. 
APRIL 8, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
Mines Act, 1952 Sections 2(h), 3(1)(b)(ii), 17 and 22-Qualified 
Manager for mine-Appointment of-word 'and' in Section 3(1)(b) 
(ii)-lnterpretation of-To be read disjunctively-Not as being 
C 
conjunctive. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes-Having regard to legislative intent 
manifested by the scheme of the Act-Word 'and to be construed as 'or' 
and read disjunctively and not as being conjunctive. 
The 111/ipector of Mines, after an inspection, found that the res-
pondents were engaged in working an open cast mine and that the 
nnmher of persollli employed on any one day exceeded 50. As respon-
dents fell within the mischief of the proviso to clause (b) of Section 3(1) of 
the Mines Act, 1952, and became subject to the provisions of the Act, he 
E 
served ·a notice under Section 22 read with Section 17 of the Act calling 
upon the respondents to appoint a qualified Manager for the mine. 
F 
G 
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court which 
allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice on the ground 
that the use of the word 'and' occurring at the end of paragraph (b) of 
sub-clause (ii) of the pr!)viso to clause (b) ofsub-section (1) of Section 3 
of the Act made the three paragraphs conjunctive and unless the condi-
tions specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) co-existed, the Inspector 
had no authority to serve the impugned notice. 
Allowing the appeal by the Joint Director of Mines, Safety. 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was not right in its interpretation of 
the word 'and' used at the end of paragraph (b) ofsuh-clause (ii) ofthe 
proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Mines Act, 
1952, as being conjunctive. It overlooked the fact that the use of the 
negative language in each of the three clauses implied that the word 
H 'and' used atthe end of clause (h) had to be read disjunctively. [803G] 
800 
\-· 
--( 
I 
+ 
-1' 
DIRECTOR MINES SAFETY'· STONE QUARRIES [SEN ,J.) 
801 
2.1 Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act provides that the provi-
A 
sions of the Act, except those contained in ss. 7, 8, 9, 44, 45 & 46 shall 
not apply to (a) any mine or part thereof in which excl\vation is being 
made for prospecting purposes only and not for the p11rpose of obtain-
ing minerals for 11se or sale, (h) any mine engaged In the extraction of 
any of the minerals specified therein, lncl11ding lime stone. There is a 
proviso under each of the clauses (a) and (b) and they set forth three 
B 
conditions on the happening of any one of which the proviso wo11ld be 
attracted, that is to say, the provisions of the Act would be made 
applicable to such a mine. [802F·HI 
2.2 According to the plain meaning, the exclusionary clause in 
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act read with the two provisos 
beneath clauses (a) and (b), the word 'and' at the end of paragraph (b) 
C 
of sub-clause (ii) of the proviso to clause (h) of Section 3(1) must in the 
coutext in which it appears be construed as 'or'; and if so constr11ed, the 
existence of any one of the three conditions stipulated in paragraphs (a), 
(b) and (c) would at once attract the proviso to clauses ('I) and (b) of 
sub-section (1) of Section 3 and thereby make the mine subject to the 
D 
provisions of the Act. Such construction is in keeping with the legisla· 
tive intent mainfested by the scheme of the Act which is primarily 
meant for ensuring the safety of workmen employed In the mines. [llmE·H) 
[The Department will find a qualified person and depute him to 
work as Manager, and respondents shall be liable to pay bis salary and 
E 
allowances as may be stipulated by the Joint Director of Mines Safety .J 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 502 
of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1973 of the Andhra 
F 
Pradesh High Court in W .A. ~o. 227 of 1972. 
Mrs. Kitty Kumaramangalam and C.V. Sobba Rao for the 
Appellant. 
A. Sobba Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
G 
After hearing Smt. Kitty Kumaramangalam, learned counsel for 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the appellant and Shri A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respon-
'',-· 
dents, we are inclined to the view that the High Court was not right in 
its interpretation of the word 'and' used at the end of paragraph (b) of 
sub-cl. (ii) of the proviso to cl.

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