Crl. W. P. No. 1733 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1733 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 23, 2011 Shiv Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Report of respondent no.2 – Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, in the form of affidavit, filed today in Court by learned State counsel, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Shiv Kumar – petitioner has filed the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that 29 persons, mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, have been illegally detained at the brick kiln of respondent no.4 by respondents no.4 to 6 i.e. owner, Munshi and Jamandar of the brick kiln. It was also alleged that the detenues are being forced to work as bonded labourers. Accordingly, report of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in accordance with provisions of The Crl. W. P. No. 1733 of 2011 2 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 was sought. Report of respondent no.2 – Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana reveals that a Committee comprising Naib Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate along with Assistant Labour Commissioner was constituted. The Committee visited the brick kiln and recorded statements of owner, Munshi and Jamandar (respondents no.4 to 6) of the brick kiln in question and also of owners of near-by brick kilns. All of them stated that they do not know about the petitioner and the alleged 29 detenues and no labourer was working in the brick kiln in question since 15.06.2011 due to rainy season. The Committee, on inspection of the site, did not find any worker working there. From the aforesaid report submitted by respondent no.2, it is evident that the petitioner has abused the process of this Court by filing the instant writ petition making false averments. None is appearing for the petitioner in spite of pass over. In view thereof, this writ petition has not only to be dismissed, but also the petitioner has to be subjected to cost. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. September 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE