THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANOTHER versus LALA KARAM CHAND THAPAR ETC.

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 10-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
9 
tax fell within the Provincial or the State List, the 
z96z 
levy would be valid under s. 292 of the Government 
Amalgamated 
of India Act and Art. 372 of the Constitution even 
Coalfields Ltd. 
without the aid of the special provision in s. 143 or 
v. 
Art. 277. In view of these considerations the learned Janapada Sabha, 
Attorney-General did not address us seriously on this 
Chhindwara 
point. 
Ayyangar ] . 
(3) The last point urged was as regards the validity 
of the increase in the rate of tax to 9 pies per ton 
effected in 1949, i.e., after the commencement of 
Government of India Act, 1935. 
This objection was 
not even hinted in the petition now before us, and we 
did not consider it proper to permit petitioners to 
raise the point. 
The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed 
with costs . 
Petition dismissed. 
THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND 
ANOTHER 
v. 
LALA KARAM CHAND THAP AR ETC. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Colliery Company-Violation of Coal Mines Regulations-
Prosecution of all directors of company, the managing agents and 
the manager of company-Legality-Mines Act of I923 repealed 
and re-enacted-Regulations made thereunder, if continue in force-
' Anyone of directors' meaning of-Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 
Ig26-Mines Act, r923 (4 of r923), s. JT(4)-Mines Act, Ig52, (35 
of I95Z), ss. 2(r), 76-General Clauses Act, I897 (IO of r897), s. 24 
-Constitution of India, Art. 20(I). 
1~he directors of a company, which was the owner of a 
colliery, the directors of the managing agents of the company, 
and the manager and the agent of colliery were prosecuted for 
offences under ss. 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952, for violation 
• 
February IO. 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
I96I 
of several regulations out of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 
1926. They challenged the validity of the prosecution on the 
Chief l"'P"'o' of grounds, inter alia (1) that as the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 
Mines 
1926, framed under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1923, had, 
v. 
under s. 31(4) of that Act, effect as if enacted in the Act, and 
Lala Katam 
as that Act had been repealed by the Mines Act, 1952, the said 
Chana Thapar Regulations had ceased to have any legal existence long before 
the date of the alleged violation, and (2) that the Regulations of 
1926 were only deemed to be regulations under the Mines Act, 
1952, and hence were not Jaws in force on the date of the 
alleged contravention, and, therefore, the prosecution in the 
present case was a violation of Art. 20(1) ,of the Constitution of 
India. Two of the directors of the company also raised an 
objection that the prosecution of all the directors was not. per-
mitted by the Mines Act, 1952, in view of s. 76 of the Act, which 
provided that any one of the directors may be prosecuted. 
The 
directors of the managing agents contended that, in any event, 
as the managing agents were not the owners of the colliery, they 
could not be prosecuted. 
Held: (1) that in view of s. 24 of the General Clauses Act, 
1897, by which when an Act is repealed and re-enacted, rules 
and regulations framed under the repealed Act shall continue 
in force and be deemed to have been made under the provisions 
so re-enacted, s. 31(4) of the Mines Act, 1923, which had been 
repealed, must be construed in such a way that for the purpose 
of the continuity of existence, the Regulations framed under 
that Act will not be considered· part of the Act. Accordingly, 
the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926, continued to be in 
force at the relevant date and must be deemed to be regulations 
made under the Mines Act, 1952. 
Institute of Patent Agents and others v. Joseph Lockwood, 
[1894] A. C. 347 and State v. K. B. Chandra, (1954) I.L.R. 33 Pat. 
507, distinguished. 
(2) that the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926, though 
they became Regulations under the Mines Act, 1952, in conse-
quence of a deeming provision, nonetheless, were "laws in force" 
within the meaning of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. 
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. The State of V indhya 
Pradesh, [1953] S.C.R. n88, distinguished. 
(3) that the expression "any one of the directors" in 
s. 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, means "every one of the direc-
tors''. 
Isle of Wight Railway Co. v. Tahourdin, (1883) 25 Ch. D. 320, 
relied on. 
(4) that the managing agents of the colliery company
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.