Crl. W. P. No. 1735 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1735 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 23, 2011 Satpal .... 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/District Magistrate, SBS Nagar (Nawanshahar), filed today in Court by learned State counsel, pursuant to order of the preceding date, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Satpal – petitioner has filed the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that 36 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 Crl. W. P. No. 1735 of 2011 2 detenues are being forced to work as bonded labourers. In view of the aforesaid, report of District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, SBS Nagar – respondent no.2 was ordered to be obtained in accordance with provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. In the report of respondent no.2 – District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, SBS Nagar, it is submitted that spot inquiry was got conducted through Tehsildar, Nawanshahar along with ASI Karamjit Singh and Naranjan Ram – Patwari. They submitted inquiry report Annexure-A. They recorded statements of the persons present at the spot including respondents no.4 to 6 and some more labourers working at the brick kiln. From their statements as well as from spot inspection, it was found that the petitioner and the alleged detenues never worked at the brick kiln in question. Labourers working there were working of their own free will. From the aforesaid report submitted by respondent no.2, it is manifest that the petitioner has abused the process of this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition making false averments. It appears that for this reason, none is appearing for the petitioner today, although the case was even passed over once. In view of the aforesaid, not only this writ petition has to be dismissed, but also the petitioner has to be subjected to cost for having abused the process of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of Crl. W. P. No. 1735 of 2011 3 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