:: 2 :; IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.-S' d~S \1998 UNDER ARTICLES 226/211 QF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA ^N ^ ,n 5 ^ Gend Lal Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Raghunath Nirmalkar, Aged about 51 years, Proprietor - Bharat Beedi Company, Resident of Ramsagar Para, DtIAMTARI District :DHAMTARI (MP) 1. 3 -VERSUS- State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Labour, Through it's Secretary, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL (MP) The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, Raipur Division, RAIPUR (Mj>) The District Magistrate & Collector, RAIPUR (MP) The Tahsildar, DHAMTARI District : DHAMTARI PETITIONER , RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JND_IA ^OR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE QF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION ETC. AND FOR ISSUANCE QE APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION XI-HC-78 *i 1*1^1 a?^TT^ vjw|^Hl^,u>-nl'<iu<?,Ro)i<iy< ^......^L.SM...I.^--..- ^^200 3TT^$T^5Tf^THP PTSTT^^TaRTO 3TT^?T q^?P (4c|[^6|<g;) g^TaR^Rd 3TT^$T 8; o.2005 Shri A.S. Seharwar, co^ Shri Sunii Otwanj, P.L. f The main grievonGe ra that the show cause/demani Labour (Prohibition & ftegu| 15.5.1997 asking th®petition^ compensation forj employing Parasram, whereas, no child establishmfint and th^ noticis petiTioner. In The meanTime,) of learned Chief Judicia! Ma4 to the showcause notices an^ have besn issusd without affl to th^ ^ff^cted p^rson and o| quashed. In similar matters i.ej between Amolchand Join Vs, Jabalpur held that 'demand^ hearing fo l^s p^rson affecf^d order.' cr)jqfo<Tlvi+ii+icoT^"fe^t xKn^iK ^3Tf^T3n^^T |n^ei for th@ p@titioner. for The State. ^ed by the petitioner in thi^ petition i5 notices under Section 17 of the Chiid |ation) Act, 1986 have beeri issued on (r-firm to doposit a sum of &s,20,OOOA os ^ne chiid tabour namely Kumari Sulochana lc(bour was engaged by the petitioner in the havfi b&sn issued without hfiaring th^ |a chalian has dso been fiied in the Court istrate, Raipur. J^e petitioner filed repiy stated that impugnedshow cause notices |?rding any opportunit^ of psrsona) hearing (i this ground alona notice^ are liabk to b@ W.P. No.4809/97 ond W.P. No.927/97 ptate the High Court of Madhya Pradegh, raised wi'ffiout affordmg opportunity cf f^ unsusfamabfe m hw and ^uashed fh& XI-HC-78 vdwi^i^irt^, u>-at<<-i<i<?,Rrtixiy<< *11*101 ^TT^ 3n^$T<CTR-ii€b WHOT^^T^tiicb ^>^—( ^^ 'T 3nt^T q?q?(^cii^<si<€;) ^200 It is admittsd position <Pi<4To<Tlvl *ll+loV^rfcl-(£lKtvi^lK ^3Tf^T3TT^^T that in the present case demand has been Therefore, same is iiabie to raified without affording op^ortunity of hearing +o the petitioner, ^how cau^e notices [Annexur^ A-i (a) <& A-l (b)] are hereby qua^hed. However, it wquld be open be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned t-o the competent authority to hear the petitioner afresh, considet the contention of petitioner and thercafter1, pas^ th@ ordcr in ^ccordonc®with law. Th@ petitioner shaJI appear before the comp€ten|- authority on 14th November, 2005 and thereafter the competent ^uthority shall fix the date ond after hsaring the pfititidn&r pass th^ order in accordance with law. With the direction 4nd observation aforesdd, The peTitJon stands disposed of< Certified eopy os per ru ies. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge