THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.14360 AND 14361 of 2002 Date of Order:10.02.2011 Between: N.Kodandarama Rao and other ..Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.14360 AND 14361 of 2002 COMMON ORDER :- Petitioners obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for calling up the records in proceedings No.H/1563/2002, dated 19.07.2002, issued by respondent No.1 i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar and to quash the same. Petitioners, who are the natives of Veljal village, Talakondapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, are farmers. On 09.06.2002 the Chief Minister of A.P., visited Veljal village in connection with Janma Bhoomi Programme and he called some children and enquired with them regarding their employment and school education etc. The petitioners were not present in the meeting nor they were called subsequently. On receiving the instructions, respondent No.1 visited the village subsequently and without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to the petitioners, issued the impugned proceedings imposing fine of Rs.25,000/- under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for brevity, “the B.L.Act”). When respondent No.2 came and demanded the fine amount, the petitioners came to know about the said orders and filed the present writ petition contending that the term “Bonded Labour” has been defined under Section 2(e) and 2(g) of the B.L.Act. The person who violates the provisions of the B.L.Act and employs Bonded Labour is punishable under Chapter VI of the B.L.Act. The offences under the B.L.Act are triable by the Executive Magistrate under Section 21 of the B.L.Act. The Magistrate has to take cognizance of the offence under Section 22 of the B.L.Act and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to the enquiry and trial. Respondent No.1 without following the said procedure passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. In response to the same, respondent No.2, the Mandal Revenue Officer, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that during the 17th round of Janma Bhoomi Programme, the children between the age group of 5 to 14 years who were dropouts and not enrolled in Schools have been called for through concerned Mandal Educational Officers, Head Masters and School Educational Committee Presidents, in view of the drive taken in the District, to stop Child Labour and admission to not enroll children in the NCLP Centres, the children who were brought to the meeting have told that they were working with the Masters with very meagre wages i.e., Rs.200/- per month. It is further submitted that Vadde Venkataiah, S/o.Chinna Jangaiah and Lakamala Srisailam, S/o.Jangaiah have told that they are working under the petitioners. Since the action of the petitioners in utilizing the services of minor boys is contrary to the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for brevity, “C.L.Act”) the Chief Minister directed to impose a fine of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioners in order to prevent such acts by others also. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Mahabubnagar Division issued proceedings No.H/1563/2002, dated 19.07.2002, imposing a fine amount of Rs.25,000/-. As per the proceedings of the Collector, Mahabubnagar, the children are eligible for Rs.71/- per day, which comes to Rs.2,130/- per month, whereas they are receiving only Rs.200/- per month from their masters. The boys were working for the last two years. If it is calculated it will work out to Rs.51,120/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.200/- per month for 24 months i.e., Rs.4,800/-, still the masters have to pay an amount of Rs.46,320/-, whereas the Revenue Divisional Officer imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- only, which is less than the actual amount due to be paid by the masters to the children. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contention that it is only the Executive Magistrate who can take cognizance and impose fine under Section 21 of the Act and the proceedings are issued without jurisdiction. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue contends that though the imposition of fine was mentioned as punishment under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the B.L.Act, the provisions under the C.L.Act have also been violated. Section 14 of the C.L.Act prescribes penalties which shall not be less than Rs.10,000/- but which may extend to Rs.20,000/- and punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year or both. In view of the same, the imposition of penalty at Rs.25,000/- for the violation of the provisions under the C.L.Act per se cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Section 14 of the C.L.Act prescribes penalties on the employees whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of Section 3, which reads as under: “14. Penalties: - (1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both.” Section 16 of the C.L. Act prescribes the procedure relating to the offence, which reads as under: “16. Procedure relating to offences: - (1) Any person, police officer or Inspector may file a complaint of the commission of an offence under this Act in any Court of competent jurisdiction. 2)… 3) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.“ Whereas Section 16 of the B.L.Act prescribes punishment for enforcement of bonded labour, which is as under:- “16. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour – whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three ears and also with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-.” Section 17 of the B.L.Act prescribes punishment for advancement of bonded debt with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend upto Rs.2,000/-. Section 18 of the B.L.Act prescribes punishment for extracting bonded labour under bonded labour system with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-. Under section 22 of the Act, every offence under the bonded labour Act shall be cognizable and bailable. As per Section 21 of the B.L.Act, the offences under bonded labour system shall be tried by the Executive Magistrate, who can be conferred with the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or of the Second Class for trial of offences under the Act; and, on such conferment of powers, the Executive Magistrate on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class and an offence under this Act will be tried summarily by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is not stated that the Executive Magistrate was conferred with the powers either under the C.L.Act or under the B.L.Act inspite of specific plea taken in para 5 of the affidavit. Further, the impugned order also shows that as directed by the Chief Minister, the Revenue Divisional Officer- cum-Executive Magistrate issued proceedings imposing fine of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioners, in order to prevent such acts by others also. Therefore, even if the powers are delegated to him, the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate obliviated his discretion under the Act and imposed the penalty as directed by the Chief Minister, which cannot be expected from a quasi-judicial authority. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act and cannot be upheld and hence, the same is accordingly quashed. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J February 10, 2011 Lmv