Mandatory prior consultation under the Mines Act may be a condition precedent to valid regulations, while the Article 14 challenge failed.

Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, as previously construed to fasten liability on every relevant shareholder or director of a mine-owning company, was not arbitrary or discriminatory, so the Article 14 challenge failed. Section 59(3), requiring prior reference of draft regulations to the Mining Board, was held mandatory because its text, scheme, public-interest purpose, and the Act's limited urgency exceptions showed it was a condition precedent to valid regulation-making. The validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, therefore depended on factual inquiry into whether the required Mining Board consultation had in fact occurred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, as construed to fasten liability on every shareholder or director of the mine-owning company, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) whether Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, requiring prior reference of draft regulations to the Mining Board, was mandatory and, if so, whether the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were invalid for want of compliance.

Issue (i): whether Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, as construed to fasten liability on every shareholder or director of the mine-owning company, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The expression "any one" in Section 76 had already been construed to mean "every one" of the relevant shareholders or directors. On that construction, the liability created by the provision was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The constitutional challenge under Article 14 therefore depended entirely on an interpretation that had been rejected.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed, and Section 76 was not void on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, requiring prior reference of draft regulations to the Mining Board, was mandatory and, if so, whether the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were invalid for want of compliance.

Analysis: The language of Section 59(3), the scheme of the Act, the public interest in informed consultation, and the role assigned to Mining Boards indicated that prior reference was intended as a condition precedent to valid regulation-making. Section 60 showed that where urgency existed, the legislature itself created limited exceptions and controlled them by temporal limits, which reinforced the mandatory character of Section 59(3). However, the record did not contain sufficient material to determine whether any Mining Boards constituted under the earlier enactment were in fact functioning and consulted when the regulations were framed.

Conclusion: Section 59(3) was mandatory, but the validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, could not be finally determined on the existing material and required factual inquiry.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional attack on Section 76 failed, but the challenge to the regulations was left to be determined after inquiry into prior consultation with the Mining Boards, and the criminal proceedings were remitted for disposal in accordance with that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a statutory requirement is mandatory or directory depends on legislative intent gathered from the text, scheme, purpose, and consequences of non-compliance, and where the statute itself provides limited exceptions to a consultation requirement, that requirement is ordinarily treated as a condition precedent to validity.

---