Crl. W.P. No.2295 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. W.P. No.2295 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Munish .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, AA.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Arun Luthra, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Reply filed by Hardevinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patiala, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 today in Court, is taken on record. The present petition has been filed for issuing writ in the nature of habeas corpus seeking release of the detenues mentioned in Para 4 of the petition, who are stated to be in illegal custody. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is a near relation of other detenues and co-workers. The petitioner and the other detenues were contacted by respondents No.4 and 5 who are the owner and munshi respectively of Jai Durga Brick Kiln at village Kalyana, Police Chowki Pakhra, Police Station Pasiyana, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The petitioner and the co-detenues were engaged for preparation of kacha bricks at the rate of Rs.300/- per thousand. It is alleged that they were being paid Rs.280/-. The petitioner and other detenues had been assured Crl. W.P. No.2295 of 2010 ::2:: that they would have no problem regarding payment. Accordingly, the labour after hiring a truck at the rate of Rs.5000/- reached at the brick Kiln in the month of October, 2010 with 5 sanchas. It is alleged that the owners do not have any type of licence to migrate the labour from other states as it is mandatory as per the provisions of the Inter-State Migrate Workmen Compensation Act, 1979. Thus, he had violated the provisions of the said Act. Besides, the respondents had kept the petitioner and other detenues and their families at brick Kiln under threat and they were not allowed to move anywhere from the brick Kiln. Gundas and musclemen had been hired to keep a watch on the detenues and their activities. A list of the detenues and their family members which are 24 in all has been mentioned, who, it is alleged, were illegally detained. At the time of motion hearing, notice of motion was issued for 21.12.2010 i.e. for today. On the asking of the Court, Mr.V.P.S. Sidhu, AA.G., accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Meanwhile, the persons mentioned in Para 4 of the petition, it was ordered that in case they were found in illegal custody of respondents No.4 and 5, they shall be got released by respondents No.2 and 3 by deputing a responsible official. A report regarding the same was asked to be submitted on the adjourned date. In terms of the affidavit of Hardevinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) Patiala, filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it is stated that one colleague of the petitioner namely Sulekh Chand son of Adli had approached this Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No.2444 of 2010 in which this Court appointed Sh.K.L.Bansal, Advocate as Warrant Officer. On 15.12.2010, Sh.K.L.Bansal, who was appointed as Warrant Officer, raided the premises of the Brick Kiln for Crl. W.P. No.2295 of 2010 ::3:: release of detenues. Necessary police help was provided to the Warrant Officer. The Warrant Officer found 21 detenues present at the Brick Kiln who were set free in the presence of police officials and they proceeded to their destination along with their belongings. Since the detenues have been got released by the Warrant Officer, therefore, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that the petitioners had filed two petitions for the same release and the petitioner has not disclosed about the Criminal Writ Petition No.2444 of 2010. Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, had appeared yesterday in CRM No.1339 of 2010 in which a prayer has been made for correcting the address of respondent No.3 from SHO, Pakhra to SHO, Pasiyana. However, today, he is not present. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has filed two petitions claiming the same relief and despite the case being listed, no one has appeared. In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-, which shall be payable by the petitioner. (S.S. SARON) December 21, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet