Delegated legislation beyond statutory power invalidated where offending rule provisions were inseverable, defeating criminal convictions.

Rules framed under the Indian Mines Act were treated as subordinate legislation capable of judicial scrutiny, and the reference was held competent to be considered with the revisions. The Court held that while the statutory power covered requiring suitable rooms or bathing facilities and imposing compliance responsibility on owners or managers, several detailed provisions went beyond the enabling sections and amounted to impermissible sub-delegation or excess of rule-making power. Because the offending provisions were not severable from the main scheme, the Mines Creche Rules and Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules were held invalid and inoperative, and convictions founded on them could not stand; the sentences were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was competent in relation to the validity of rules framed under the Indian Mines Act, 1923; (ii) Whether Rule 3(a) of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, and Rule 3(1) of the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946, were invalid for double delegation or for exceeding the rule-making power under Section 30(bb) and Section 30(bbb) of the Indian Mines Act, 1923; (iii) Whether the convictions could be sustained where certain parts of the rules were said to be ultra vires.

Issue (i): Whether the reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was competent in relation to the validity of rules framed under the Indian Mines Act, 1923.

Analysis: The validity question arose in relation to rules framed under the Act and published with statutory force. The majority view treated the rules, for purposes of construction and challenge, as subordinate legislation capable of judicial scrutiny where they operated as part of the statutory framework. The dissenting view treated the reference as incompetent, but the majority considered that the reference could be dealt with alongside the revisions and that the legality of the rules could be examined.

Conclusion: The reference was competent and could be answered with the revisions.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 3(a) of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, and Rule 3(1) of the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946, were invalid for double delegation or for exceeding the rule-making power under Section 30(bb) and Section 30(bbb) of the Indian Mines Act, 1923.

Analysis: The majority held that the power to require suitable rooms or bathing places included power to require construction and maintenance, and that owners and managers could be made responsible for compliance. At the same time, the majority found that several detailed provisions, including approval of plans by a competent authority and ancillary requirements beyond the statutory text, went beyond the permissible field and amounted to impermissible sub-delegation or excess of power. The majority further held that the offending provisions were not severable from the main scheme of the rules and that the rules as a whole could not stand.

Conclusion: The rules were held invalid and inoperative.

Issue (iii): Whether the convictions could be sustained where certain parts of the rules were said to be ultra vires.

Analysis: The majority held that the obligation to construct the creche or pithead bath could not be separated from the invalid parts of the rules in the circumstances of the cases, and the accused could not be convicted on the basis of rules that were held to be invalid as a whole. The contention that the breaches were continuing offences did not alter the result once the governing rules were found invalid.

Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The majority decision upheld the challenge to the impugned rules, resulted in acquittal of the convicted petitioners, and left the reference to be answered in line with that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the delegated rules materially exceed the statutory authority and the invalid portions are not severable from the operative scheme, the entire set of rules cannot be enforced to sustain criminal convictions.

---