Anand Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-14.12.2023 Anand Kumar ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present:

Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to release the detenues mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition, who have been alleged to be in the illegal custody of respondent No. 5. 2.

Notice of motion to the official respondents only. 3.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his prayer is 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.

5.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.32 of 2013, titled as 'Murti versus The State of Punjab and others',.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

7.

A perusal of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Murti's case (supra), it has been held therein 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 1 of 2 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 Bonded 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.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and setaside/modify the order dated 9.1.

alongwith a copy of the writ petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Hisar, 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 certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition." 8.

Thus, keeping in view the respective submissions and the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this in Murti's case (supra), the present Criminal Writ Petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, 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 certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE December 14, 2023 Parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No