tN TH£"~OT8H C01.1RT <»F .JUCtiTGATOHE WTUSeALPUfi TM.P.T W. P. No.^ ' ^ £? /2000 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Dilip Si'ngh Bhuval, S/b. late Shri Lakhan Singh Bhuval, aged 42 years, OCcupation Business, C/o. Bhuv.ai Bricks, ViTlage ^BaTodi, Dist. Durg (M.P.) V ER S US 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, ThroughSecretary, Department of Labour, Vanabh Bhawan, BhopaT 2. Assistant Labour Commissioner DUrg-cum-InspeGtor, Chnd Labour (Prohibition and Regulettion) Act, 1986, Durg, Dist. Durg-(M.P.) 3. Collector, Durg, Dist. Durg (M.P.) 4. TehsiIdar, Durg (M.P.) t\ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF ^"kN APPROPRIATE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, ^- ?3T •*II<<ICT<(, *i«<si^'i, oiainy WCT g^;......"-E.NQ<.SlS9/2Qfla.......^ ^Q an^yr wv ('ySyiyi) sn^i.w I<;-)i<k W d)l<!ll Stttll* •12-2000 .^<ii<3T flfea otT^i Shr.i. Manindra the petitioner. Shrivbsfava, learned counsel for Shri Ranveer Singh, As the return has a No.2 who bad issued the flnally heard. learned counsel for ttie State. ap.ready been filed by respondent dejaand notices. the petition is undter Taking s helter Supreme Court relat-ing to of child-labour, responden|t petitJ.oner tbat he 1s requji Rs.4,20,000/- as be had labourers, contrary to the| requlred respondent No.2 issuance of the demand allegation was made or not|, reply-affidavlt, bad s.tm; deraand notlces, a survey that 21 chlld labourers wel] ment of petj.tj.oner. In tfc|e stated that any snqu-try wa| Issued notj.ee was/even to the pet| however, submlts tbat on show-cause notj.ee to the i) <tii<<I<'i<At •>n*m?'^ fs^ <F;*it$R ^ aiRw <»tr^ the orders issued by tbe Iprohib.lti.on on the eroployment No.2-Issued notices to the equjired to, deposit a suro of eittF|loyed as many as 21 child Prohibitlon Act. This Court t|o state on oath as to before not|ices, any enquiry on the said Respondent No.2 in his before stated that/te .Lssuing tbe t^as made and It was found [re eraployed In the establish- |e reply-affj.davit, it As npt |s made or any show-cause [J.tJ.oner. Respondent No.2, .7-1997, he bad issued a btitloner and as no reply 2|9 aRPRJ—FS/242—2/2000—30.000 . tlt XI-HG—78 ^sr'siiraiwr, tciii^i, iiiCTy wror *MI* •Sfst, 200 an^t ys (siw TPITSII^I SBlili an^yr ia% (fS's'v^) ^giW^tofsii^ was EeceKe^ from tbe petj; demand notices. A'perusal of Ahne) would sbow ttiat the same In tbe said aotice. i.t isl petitioner had employed c{ establishment Aa coatravei the Sypreine Gourt, therefij bf fis.20,000/- for each bre the petj.tioner was requi.r^ was not requlred to say ar| Ttae deraand notice; the demand in relation to the said areoitnt In the wel A siniple questioa respondent No.2 has not be to say whether any enqu.lry deraand notices or not. In In terins of the query, he issued some notices. As there 1s no ass <i>i<ifd<i)-i tin?if^f.ts'<l <(»i<si< ^ <nRrq ^fi^ii LtJLoner, he had issued the lure R-2(l) dated 29-7-1997 .s not a show cause notlce. clearly observed that the srtaln cU3.Id worters in hls itloa of the dj.rections of >re, he must deposlt a sum ^acb. Under Annexure R-2(l) |d to depbsit the araount and [ything ttifl hls defence. dated 06-12-1997 relterate ^acb breach for depos.i.ti.ng Kare fund. tirh-tch could be answered Ipn answered. He was required was rnade Igefore Issuing the ^tead of subniittlng the reply Istmply stated that he had ^rtlon on the part of the '•i'ty. '•''.i.^'^ ^3" •<<i<<i<t«, 'ktwisi^.?!, 'n«i<i^< W.P.No.5199/2000 NIM^I *1t«b"---"••-•—"•••---"---"-•- ^ 200 3ti^?r TR% (ipf^gqg) aii^l.^ir R;-<i°li '(WT'otR^l st>lflcb /Rao/ A'l- ^tfll^R ^f?d 'alT^l respdndents espe'cially was made by respondent No or raising the demand, tl^ r|espondent No.2, that any enquiry before has been posltlvely viola|l C.Wl^- leads to sistwesne consequenpe be heard. In tbe least, that before taking an to the petitioner to authority. Tbe survey reply nothing faas been certaln statements were r was sought from the petit. actK.on suLbmB.t aptiears fltted The demand raised prima-facie illegal. It quashed. The respondents; In accordance wj.th law. Petition is allo^ed ci»i<fT<n<ili *ir*f<;rf'?f fs^ <fai<^i< "^ stRW 3T(^T |.2/i3e issuing the deniand notices principle of natural justice ,|ted. When an order of demand !, ia a person is entttled to |lt 1s expected of respondent No.2 i, he would give some opportunj-ty t»4s case before tbe said to be J.op'sslded. with the to show or suggest that fecorded or certain information .oner even on the spot. by tbe respondents is peserves to and is accordJLngly are free to take any action No costs. Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge G RPRJ—FS/242—2/2000—30.00t) ihil!'