Mines Inspector cannot adjudicate mine-accident violations through a show-cause notice, Calcutta High Court rules

Following a fatal mine accident, the appellant Inspector conducted an enquiry under Section 23 of the Mines Act, 1952, and issued the writ petitioners a show-cause notice concerning alleged contraventions of Section 18 of the Act and Regulation 39 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 2017.

The petitioners challenged the Inspector’s authority to issue the notice.

The Single Judge held that the notice was without jurisdiction, reasoning that a formal enquiry into the causes and circumstances of the accident could be conducted only under Section 24 of the Act.

The appellants appealed, relying principally on the Inspector’s powers under Sections 7 and 23.

Whether an Inspector’s enquiry under Section 23 of the Mines Act authorises the Inspector to issue a show-cause notice seeking responses to alleged statutory contraventions following a fatal mine accident.

Whether the Inspector’s powers under Sections 7 and 23, read with the duties and liabilities set out in Section 18 and Regulation 39, provide authority to commence such proceedings by show-cause notice.

Section 7 of the Mines Act empowers an Inspector to examine and inquire into whether the Act, regulations, rules and orders are being observed, and to exercise prescribed powers.

Section 23 requires notice of specified mine accidents and provides for an enquiry into an accident causing loss of life; that enquiry concerns the occurrence and does not itself confer adjudicatory authority to issue a show-cause notice alleging contraventions.

Under Section 24, the Central Government may appoint a competent person to conduct a formal enquiry into an accident’s causes and circumstances; that person has specified civil-court powers and may exercise an Inspector’s powers for the enquiry.

Section 18 and Regulation 39 prescribe responsibilities and liabilities but do not confer power to issue a show-cause notice.

The Inspector may report to the Central Government for action under Section 24 or pursue prosecution where authorised by the Act.

The Court accepted that Section 23 required an Inspector to enquire into a fatal accident, but construed that enquiry as limited to the occurrence; the mandatory wording did not enlarge the Inspector’s authority into adjudication or empower the Inspector to commence a separate show-cause proceeding.

The notice alleged contraventions of Section 18 and Regulation 39, but those provisions identified responsibilities and liabilities rather than conferring procedural authority on the Inspector.

Because the Inspector lacked the powers necessary to adjudicate the allegations, the notice was beyond the authority conferred by the Act.

A formal enquiry into causes and circumstances could instead be initiated through the mechanism in Section 24, while any prosecution had to follow the Act’s applicable provisions.

The appeal and connected application were dismissed; the appellants remained free to pursue any lawful remedy available under the Act.

The petitioners’ participation in responding to the notice did not preclude them from challenging the Inspector’s jurisdiction.