CRWP No. 501 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No. 501 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.05.2011 Harish ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH **** PRESENT: Mr. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 7. **** JORA SINGH, J. Harish, preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the release of detenu namely Vicky S/o of the petitioner, from the illegal confinement of private respondents i.e. respondents No. 4 to 7 and for appointment of warrant Officer. Allegation of the petitioner is that Vicky aged about 16 years is the son of the petitioner but he is in illegal custody of respondents No. 4 to 7. That the petitioner was contacted by private respondents in his village in UP and as per contract, petitioner agreed CRWP No. 501 of 2011 -2- to manufacture Kachha bricks at the brick kiln of the respondents, at the rate of ` 310/- per thousand. Petitioner along with other members came to the brick-kiln of respondents No. 4 to 7. After that detenu at the brick kiln found the earth to be unfit for preparation of bricks. Petitioner pointed out that unfit earth will cost them more labour and product will also not be of good quality. Petitioner along with his members was given beatings. That the petitioner along with other members requested that they be allowed to leave the brick kiln but they were not allowed to go home. Private respondents also refused to issue receipts against preparation of bricks but thumb impression of the petitioner and others were obtained on stamp papers/printed forms. Earlier, petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2543 of 2010 and in that writ petition warrant officer was appointed. Ultimately, petition was disposed of in view of the report of the warrant officer, to the effect that none of the alleged detenues were found in the illegal custody of private respondents. Argued that counsel for the petitioner failed to present the case on 28.1.2011, when the writ petition was disposed of. True facts were not highlighted because Harish-petitioner was kidnapped by the private respondents. Son of the petitioner namely, Vicky, was shifted elsewhere and was not released. Vicky is still in custody of private respondents. Representation was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, on 4.2.2011, copy of which is Anneuxre P-2, but no action till today. Private respondents are pressurizing the petitioner to work at the brick kiln and provide labour and due to this reason, they are not releasing the detenu. CRWP No. 501 of 2011 -3- In pursuance of the notice, reply was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. Separate reply was filed by respondents No. 4 to 7. Copies of the same were supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner with some other labourers was engaged by the private respondents i.e. respondents No. 4 to 7 to mould kachha bricks. Earlier CRWP No. 2543 of 2010, was filed by the petitioner but only females were released. Male members were not released. Vicky son of the petitioner is still in the custody of respondents No. 4 to 7. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 7 argued that earlier CRWP No. 2543 of 2010, was filed by the present petitioner and in that writ petition warrant officer was appointed. None of the alleged detenues were found to be in the illegal custody of private respondents. Ultimately, writ petition was disposed of. Same allegation of the petitioner in the present writ petition that Vicky is still in the custody of private respondents. Petitioner is filing petition one after the other on the same allegation that Vicky is still in custody of the private respondents. Report of the warrant officer is to the effect that none of the alleged detenues including Vicky are in the illegal custody of private respondents. Inspection was also conducted by Naib Tehsildar, Ghanaur. Annexure R-1/T is the copy of the report dated 22.2.2011. Second time inspection was on 11.3.2011 and report is Annexure R-2/T and Vicky was not found to be in the illegal custody of respondents No. 4 to 7. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that the instant petition was filed with some ulterior motive. Petitioner along with some other labourers was engaged to mould kachha bricks. Dispute is CRWP No. 501 of 2011 -4- regarding payment. According to the petitioner, their thumb impressions were obtained on stamp papers/printed forms whereas allegation of the respondents is that petitioner along with some other labourers had came to the brick kiln to mould bricks but they had left the brick kiln and after that never came back to the brick kiln. Perusal of file shows that earlier CRWP No. 2543 of 2010, was instituted by the present petitioner on the allegation that number of detenues including Vicky, are in the custody of private respondents i.e. the owner of the brick kiln. Reply by Manmohan Kumar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajpura, along with the statements of Shiva and Karan, was filed. As per reply, none of the alleged detenues were found to be in the illegal custody of private respondents. After the report of DSP, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only ladies were released and male members i.e. Vicky, Biram Pal, Om Kaar, Sudhir, Nitin, Sonu and Harish are still in the custody of private respondents. As per order dated 22.12.2010, District Magistrate, Patiala, was also directed to submit report and as per report of the District Magistrate, Patiala, also none of the alleged detenues were found in the custody of the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only ladies were released but male members including Vicky are still in the custody of the respondents. Then as per submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner, warrant officer was appointed and report of the warrant officer is to the effect that none of the alleged detenues was found in the custody of the private respondents. CRWP No. 2543 of 2010, was disposed of vide order dated 28.1.2011. Now report of District Magistrate, Patiala, is on the file. CRWP No. 501 of 2011 -5- According to the report, brick kiln in question was inspected by Naib Tehsildar, Ghanaur, on 22.2.2011. Annexure R-1/T is the copy of the report. Again on 11.3.2011, inspection was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Ghanaur and report is Annexure R-2/T. As per inspection reports, Annexures R-1/T and R-2/T, none of the alleged detenues are in the custody of the private respondents. Manmohan Kumar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajpura, had also inspected the brick kiln on 16.3.2011 but detenu was not found to be in the custody of private respondents. Respondents No. 4 to 7 who are the owners of the brick kiln filed reply separately and contention of the private respondents is that petitioner along with other members came to the brick kiln 3 years back but after that they had left the job and never came back to the brick kiln. Petitioner along with some other labourers was contacted by the owner of the brick kiln to mould kachha bricks at the rate of ` 310/- per thousand but earth was not found fit for the moulding of kachha bricks. There was a dispute regarding rates. According to the petitioner, thumb impressions of the labourers were obtained on stamp papers/printed forms but no complainant and no civil suit for recovery till today. Only complaint copy of which is Annexure P-2, was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. As per report by the warrant officer, revenue Authorities and police Authorities of different dates, none of the alleged detenu was found in the illegal custody of private respondents. In fact the petitioner along with some other members was contacted by the owner of the brick kiln to mould kachha bricks but after CRWP No. 501 of 2011 -6- that they had left the job. Dispute seems to be regarding payment and to effect recovery writ petition is being filed by the petitioner one after the other on the same allegation that the detenues including Vicky are in the custody of private respondents. In view of the inspection reports by the Police/Revenue Authorities and report of the warrant officer in the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 2543 of 2010, no further action is required. Writ petition without merits is dismissed. Representation copy of which is Annexure P-2, was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala and in case the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, has received any such complaint then the same be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order. May 13, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE