Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2011CWP/2874/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for habeas corpus challenging illegal custody of detainees by brick kiln employers. Court dismissed petition relying on Deputy Commissioner's affidavit that workers had left voluntarily with belongings and no bounding structures existed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal writ petition dismissed based on Deputy Commissioner's affidavit finding no illegal custody.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Harya… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Writ Petition No.2874 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Writ Petition No.2874 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 25, 2012

Maharaj

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶12

Paramjeet Singh, J (Oral)

¶13

None had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of hearing. Even today there is no representation on his behalf.

¶14

The instant Crl. writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for releasing the detenues as mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition, who are stated to be illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 6.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued and direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar to enquire into the matter by this Court on 26.12.2011. In compliance to order dated 26.12.2011, learned counsel for the respondent-State has filed an affidavit of Sh. Varun Roozam, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar-respondent No.1 along with Annexures R-1 and R-2 (Statements). In the said affidavit, it has been stated that a committee was constituted by the Dy. Commissioner and the said committee

¶16

Crl. Writ Petition No.2874 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

made a surprise check at the premises of respondents No.4 to 6, the persons as mentioned in para No.3 from Sr. No.1 to 54 were not found there. Joint statement of all the persons working at the brick-kiln present at the time of surprise check was recorded. Statement of the watchman of the brick kiln was also recorded separately. A perusal of the affidavit and statement reveal that there was no bounded labour and all the workers were working with their own sweet will. No boundary wall or fencing wire was found there. All those workers have left the place along with their family and belongings.

¶19

In view of above and affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

January 25, 2012 (PARAMJEET SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S R.D.Aggarwal & Co. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M.B.Rana Vs Neelum and Anr.

Chiman Lal Vs Varun Mittal

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Gurbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.