The Board bestowed its judgment on the materials gathered by the Regional Inspector at the enquiry, which included the delinquents admission, and cancelled the shot firing certificate.
g of the Mines Act, misinterpreted by the High Court at all?
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 25 9 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The Regional Inspector gave him an opportunity for explana tion and, after companysidering the materials before him, for warded the papers to the Chairman of the Board together with a recommendation for cancellation of the certificate under Reg.
Was Regulation 26, in the companytext and set.
Now, how can the cancellation order by the Board be bad for failure to suspend the certificate by the Regional Inspector ?
Thereby he companytravened the relevant Coal Mines Regulations.
CIVIl, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The said cancellation was shot down by a writ of the Court on the ground of violation of Reg.
2294 1968.
Petition No.
595/66.
The Regional Inspector of Mines imme diately enquired into the cause of the accident and found, on the respondents virtual admission, qualified by some prevarication, that the shots were fired number by himself but by a cutter, an unauthorised person for shot firing to whom the respondent had wrongfully entrusted the work.
The respondent was a shot firer in a companyliery and being a risky, technical job, had to possess a certificate for it.
K. Gambhir, amicus curiae, for the Respondent.
Genl, B. Datta and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.
N. Sinha, Sol.
He handed over an explosive to an unskilled hand who fired it, an accident occurred and one Bhadu, employed in the mine, was injured.
