Sanjay v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No. 9474 of 2023 Date of Decision: 21.09.2023 Sanjay ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Aditya Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) [1] The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to locate the detenues mentioned in para No.2 of the writ petition at the premises of the Brick Kiln of respondent No.4 or at any other place to be pointed out by the petitioner and get the detenues released forthwith from illegal detention by respondent Nos.4 and 5.
[2] Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that he does not press for the prayer for appointment of Warrant Officer in this case and restricts his prayer only to the extent that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law within a stipulated period.
CWRP4947442023 - 2 - [3] In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in
Law Finder Doc Id #2066834 that has been followed in CRWP4626142022 titled
, decided on 28.06.2022 and by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP4878542023 titled
decided on 04.09.2023.
[4] Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 only at this stage. [5] Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of official respondentsState and waives service. [6] I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
[7] A perusal of the decision of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in (supra), would show that it held as under: "It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted.
Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.
CWRP4947442023 - 3 - allow this appeal and setaside/modify the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition."
[8] Thus, keeping in view the respective submissions and decision of Division Bench of this Court in (supra), the present Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Ropar, Punjab to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. [9] A copy of this order be supplied to the learned State counsel, to be sent to District Magistrate, Ropar, for ensuring requisite compliance. (VIKAS SURI) September 21, 2023 JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No Whether reportable?
Yes/No