IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 231 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 03, 2010 Kali Charan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for securing the release of the detenus, as mentioned in para 3 of the petition, from the custody of respondents No.4 to 6. Prayer has also been made for directions to respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Rohtak, to hold an enquiry under the Bonded Labour System(Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the detenus are made to work as bonded labourers by respondents No.4 to 6. According to the petitioner, he and the detenus were contacted by respondents No.4 to 6 at their native village in Uttar Pradesh for moulding kacha bricks at their brick kiln situated at village Crl. Writ Petition No. 231 of 2010 -2- Nigana at the rate of Rs.225/- per thousand. All of them reached the brick kiln with the sanchas (frames) in December, 2009 and started moulding bricks. However, respondents No.4 to 6 did not pay them their daily wages nor granted weekly leave. They also did not permit the workers to work somewhere else. They kept the petitioner and the detenus as well as their family members at the brick kiln under threat. They had also hired musclemen to keep watch on the activities of the petitioner and the detenus. Somehow, the petitioner was able to sneak out from the brick kiln and, thus, filed the present petition. None of the detenus had been paid the wages for the last two months. As such, the detenus are starving at the brick kiln and are at the mercy of respondents No.4 to 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the petition. The Parliament has enacted the Act in the year 1976 so as to provide for the abolition of bonded labour system so as to prevent the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker section of the people. Section 10 of the Act requires the State Government to confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as may be necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. Such a District Magistrate may specify the Officer, subordinate to him, to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties so conferred or imposed, within the specified local limits. Crl. Writ Petition No. 231 of 2010 -3- Section 12 of the Act lists the duties of the District Magistrate or/and Officer authorized by him to enquire whether any bonded labour system or any other form of forced labour is being enforced by anyone within the local limits of his jurisdiction and if, as a result of such enquiry, any person is found to be enforcing the bonded labour system, he shall forthwith take necessary action to eradicate the enforcement of such forced labour. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has adequate remedy available to him to apply to the District Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. Admittedly, no such application or representation has been made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate. Instead, he has rushed to this Court for filing the present habeas corpus petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Bandhuva Mukti Morcha V Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 802, Neeraja Chaudhary V State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1099, Mukesh Advani V State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 1363, People's Union for Democratic Rights and others V Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 1473, Public Union for Civil Liberties V State of Tamil Nadu and others (2004) 12 SCC 381 and Badhua Mukti Morcha V Union of India and others, (2000)10 SCC 104 to submit that as respondents No.4 to 6 have committed the offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, therefore, an enquiry be conducted by respondent No.2-District Crl. Writ Petition No. 231 of 2010 -4- Magistrate, Rohtak and to launch criminal prosecution against respondents No.4 to 6. However, such a stage has not reached so far. The petitioner has only alleged that the detenus are being kept forcibly at the brick kiln by respondents No. 4 to 6 and, that too, without paying wages to them and, instead, requiring them to work against their wishes. Only after the petitioner files an application/representation to the District Magistrate and an enquiry follows that it can be ascertained as to whether the detenus are being kept at the brick kiln by respondents No.4 to 6 against their wishes or not. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit an application/representation to the District Magistrate, Rohtak as contemplated by Section 12 of the Bonded Labour System(Abolition) Act, 1976. In case, any such application/representation is made, the District Magistrate, Rohtak shall take appropriate action thereupon within a period of ten days. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 03, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1