Disposed

Kuldeep @ Chota and 19 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023HABC/49/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition filed by 20 petitioners alleging illegal detainment as bonded labor by a brick kiln owner. Court directed District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to inquire into the matter within 15 days and take appropriate action on findings.

What did the court decide?

Inquiry directed within 15 days; action to be taken to secure release if charges proved correct or against deponent if incorrect.

Kuldeep @ Chota and 19 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 49 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Kuldeep @ Chota And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred on behalf of 20 petitioners, through petitioner No.1- the depondent. The petitioners are allegedly in the illegal captivity of respondent no.5, who is brick klin owner of brick marked as KBF Bhuria, which situated at Village Baruki, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has already accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no.5, who is owner of the alleged brick klin is illegally detaining the petitioners. The petitioners are relatives of the deponent/petitioner No.1 and are working at the same place, which is brick klin owned by respondent No.5. They are daily wage labours and earned their livelihood by working at different brick klin in the District Bijnor with their families. The petitioners alongwith their family are engaged as contract labours in the said brick klin and it was agreed that the owner of the brick klin will pay Rs.650/- per thousand for molding of bricks. The petitioners started working honestly from 26.11.2022 and for the same respondent No.5 assured them to provide dues and other amenities. After a couple of days, when the petitioners demanded their dues and amenities, the same was refused by him and he began treating them as bonded labourers. An amount of Rs.55,000/- is due against the respondent No.5, which is payable to the petitioners. They are not even permitted to leave the brick klin. The petitioner No.1, who is one of the detenue ran away from the brick klin and moved the application before the District Magistrate, Bijnor for necessary action and to rescue the petitioner from captivity of the respondent No.5.

¶9

Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶10

parties, there is no useful purpose to keep this petition pending. Therefore, it is provided that the District Magistrate, Bijnor and Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, shall enquire into the matter and if the contentions of the petitioners are found to be correct, then action should be taken against the respondent no.5, to secure the release of the petitioners from the illegal captivity, expeditiously without unreasonable delay, say within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. It is further made clear that in case the allegations are found incorrect, District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police is directed to take action against the deponent in accordance with law immediately after completion of inquiry.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned A.G.A. to ensure the compliance of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Kamarjahan

¶14

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep @ Chota and 19 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep @ Chota and 19 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhedi Lal and Another Vs State of U P and Another

Jitendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Chandni (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Fareen and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km Neha (Minor-Represented by the Freedom Firm) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sri Krishan Dev Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U P and 7 Others