Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7597-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 85 of 2025 Petitioner :- Asmin Respondent :- State Of Thru. Prin. Secy Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Sri Pratyush Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of instructions received from the District Magistrate, Bagpat has stated that the district authorities on inspection of the site in question have not found any bonded labour engaged for manufacture of bricks at the brick kiln in question. 2. It is thus pointed out that the averments made in the writ petition do not make out a case for the relief sought here in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage could not clarify or adduce any evidence on the basis of which the averments made in the writ petition may be deemed to be true. 4. Be that as it may, it is expected that in case any complaint is made regarding the engagement of bonded labour, the same shall be attended and looked into by the district authorities as per the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and necessary action may be taken accordingly. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations made above. 6. Before parting it is necessary to put on record that on the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he had received a call from Mobile No.9758210137 which on being verified has been found to be the mobile number of Head Constable 111 namely Munna Lal. 7. Head Constable, Sri Munna Lal as well as the Sub Inspector Sri Vikas Kumar both are personally present in the Court. 8. Head Constable, Sri Munna Lal has stated that he was instructed to make a call to learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the subject matter of the present writ petition by the Sub- Inspector, present in person, who admitted the position. The Sub-Inspector however did not choose to contact the office of learned Standing counsel from where the notice had come to be communicated to the office of the concerned Sub Inspector. 9. Once the notice was received by the Sub- Inspector or the district police from the office of Chief Standing Counsel, it was incumbent upon them to have contacted the learned standing counsel regarding the subject matter of the writ petition. There was no occasion for any of the authorities of the district police to have contacted the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10.Thus, it is established that the learned counsel for the petitioner was contacted by the Sub- Inspector through the mobile number of the Head Constable, which is an improper act. Though the Sub-Inspector namely Sri Vikas Kumar has expressed an apology but a note of caution looking to his improper conduct is a 'must' and therefore the Superintendent of Police, Bagpat is hereby directed to issue a simple warning to the Sub- Inspector namely Vikas Kumar so as to be careful in future. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench