TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Board could cancel a shot-firer's certificate under Regulation 26 without a prior suspension by the Regional Inspector, whether the Regional Inspector's report could validly contain a recommendation for cancellation, and whether a further hearing before the Board was necessary to satisfy natural justice.
Analysis: Regulation 26 was construed as part of a safety-oriented statutory scheme intended to prevent further harm in hazardous mining operations. The Regional Inspector's function included enquiry into breaches and reporting to the Board, while the Board had overall responsibility for enforcement and safety. The absence of a formal prior suspension did not defeat the Board's power where the Inspector had already held an enquiry and forwarded the material to the Board. A report containing a recommendation was not materially different from a report following suspension, since both conveyed the Inspector's prima facie assessment and merely supplied material for the Board's independent decision. On natural justice, the affected person had already submitted his explanation to the Board in response to the Inspector's report, and the Board was not shown to have acted mechanically or to have surrendered its judgment to the subordinate authority.
Conclusion: The Board's cancellation order was valid, and the High Court was wrong in quashing it on the ground of procedural illegality or denial of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
