Cr.WP No.11 of 2009 19.4.2010 Present: Ms. Pratima Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. On 9.4.2010, this Court had noted that in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 it had been mentioned that the labourers mentioned in the petition were working voluntarily in the factory and not as bonded labourers. A direction was issued that in case any person included in the list of persons named in the petition is still working at the brick kiln, he be produced before the Court today. The Superintendent of Police, Kangra was directed to ensure the compliance of this direction. The Superintendent of Police, Kangra has filed his report pursuant to the direction given by us. The Sub Inspector, Police Station Jawali, who is present in the Court was deputed for locating the labourers and it was found that in fact no person was working in the brick kiln. He made his report (Annexure P-2) in this behalf. The Sub Inspector also recorded the statement of Tarsem Singh to the effect that the brick kiln was lying closed. During the course of investigation, it was found that respondents No. 5 and 6 are running some other brick kiln but none of the persons named in the petition were found working in the said brick kiln. Ms. Pratima Malhotra, Advocate states that despite her repeated letters the petitioner has not contacted her. Therefore, it is obvious that nobody is being kept at the brick kiln against their consent. As such, the matter is closed. The petition is disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), J (Rajiv Sharma), J April 19, 2010(VT)