Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71469 (PNJ)

RAMBHGT v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRWP/6702/2025 · 2025-06-23

Harkesh Manuja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRWP No.6702 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 173 RAMBHGT Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the petitioner. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks issuance of a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of detenues petition. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that the detenues as shown in para no.4 of the present petition have been illegally detained by respondent No. illegal detention of the aforesaid respondent relationship with that of detenues. 3. In others” following order was passed by the the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.6702 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Pal Singh Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution etitioner seeks issuance of a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for release of detenues and articles as mentioned in para no.4 of the present It is a case of the petitioner that the detenues as shown in para no.4 of the present petition have been illegally detained by respondent No. ion of the aforesaid respondent. relationship with that of detenues. In LPA No.32 of 2013 titled “Murti vs The State of Punjab and following order was passed by the Hon’ble “It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.6702 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 ......Petitioner ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution etitioner seeks issuance of a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for as mentioned in para no.4 of the present It is a case of the petitioner that the detenues as shown in para no.4 of the present petition have been illegally detained by respondent No.5 and are still in Petitioner has also shown his/her “Murti vs The State of Punjab and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court: “It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean 1 By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution etitioner seeks issuance of a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for as mentioned in para no.4 of the present It is a case of the petitioner that the detenues as shown in para no.4 of and are still in Petitioner has also shown his/her “Murti vs The State of Punjab and Division Bench of this Court:- “It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.23 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRWP No.6702 of 2025 that to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bo received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and take immedia within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition.” 4. In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistra as a complaint under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 and to take immediate action in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of thi attached along with the order. June 23, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set he order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and take immedia within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition.” In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Hisar (Haryana)-respondent No.2 to treat the present petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 and to take immediate action in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copy of the crl. writ petition be also attached along with the order. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging nded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set-aside/modify he order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition.” In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to treat the present petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 and to take immediate action in accordance with law within a period of one week from the s order. Copy of the crl. writ petition be also (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2 the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging nded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been aside/modify he order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint te action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to treat the present petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 and to take immediate action in accordance with law within a period of one week from the s order. Copy of the crl. writ petition be also MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.23 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment