CW 3413/2005 - Manish Kharod Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt.5.3.2008 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3413/2005 Manish Kharod Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 5th March, 2008 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Ramesh Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Mehta, Addl. Government Advocate. --------- 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order Annex.4 dated 28.4.2005 passed by the Tehsildar, Nimbahera seeking to recover the amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of penalty for alleged illegal employment of child labour in the factory premises of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner contended that without any order imposing the said penalty or determination of said amount, straight- away the recovery proceedings have been taken under the Land Revenue Act which is not sustainable in law. The petitioners further stated in the writ petition that no child, contrary to the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 1986 was employed by him. Learned Government Advocate opposed these submissions. 3. Recently this Court while deciding a similar writ petition CW 3413/2005 - Manish Kharod Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt.5.3.2008 2/3 namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3303/2004 – Bhanwar Lal Soloanki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. on 7th February, 2008 held as under:- 6. This appears to be rather strange to this Court that how straightaway the recovery proceedings under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act could be initiated by the competent authority under the aforesaid Act and certificate of recovery was issued to the concerned Tehsildar for recovery of said amount of penalty or fine without even first passing an appropriate order or such fine having been imposed by the competent court of law upon a proper complaint filed by the said authority under Section 14 of the said Act. This is like putting the cart before the horse. Even without imposition of a penalty or fine in accordance with law, the recovery of alleged amount of penalty is said to be effected by the said authority by resort to provision of Land Revenue Act. It also indicates the reckless and casual manner in which the concerned authority under the Act has acted in the present case against the petitioner. The averment made in the writ petition that no penalty order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is not even disputed from the side of the respondents in the reply filed to the writ petition. For the pious objective of the Act of prohibiting CW 3413/2005 - Manish Kharod Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt.5.3.2008 3/3 child labour employment, the concerned authority was expected to have acted in a far more methodical manner. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that straight way recovery proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner without first passing an order determining the said liability on the petitioners after giving opportunity of hearing to him. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the Annex.4, the attachment warrant issued by the Tehsildar, Nimbahera on 28.4.2005 is quashed. 6. The respondent No.2, Dy. Labour Commissioner shall be however free to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance law for determination of the amount of penalty under Section 14 of the Act, if any,after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.36 babulal/-