BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.8815 of 2008 Aayuthapoojai . . . Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, District Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division Officer Office, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. . . . Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 22.02.2008 in the light of bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 within a time frame which may be fixed by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Murugapan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate * * * * * :ORDER
Mr.D.Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate has taken notice on behalf
of the respondents.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this writ petition would run thus:
The cri de coeur of the petitioner as found set out in the affidavit
accompanying the writ petition could be portrayed thus:
The petitioner and his family members were taken as bonded labourers by
the Proprietor of R.R. Chamber Bricks, Near Chennai and subsequently they
escaped from the clutches of the said person. Thereafter, the petitioner gave
representations to the District Collector, Virudhunagar District and to the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar District on 22.02.2008 seeking
financial assistance for rehabilitating themselves. But there was no response
at all. Hence, this petition seeking the issuance of writ of mandamus.
4. Whereas the learned Government Advocate presenting a copy of the report
submitted by the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Aruppukkottai, would
develop his arguments to the effect that the police enquired into the matter and
found that the petitioner is yet to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty
thousand only) to one Subbiah and that no action could be taken as against the
Proprietor, R.R. Chamber Bricks, Near Chennai.
5. Ex facie and prima facie I could see considerable force in the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that a
person if really was kept under bondage against his will and if he was exploited
by any one, certainly the individual is having the right to approach the
District Collector or the authorities concerned seeking assistance for
rehabilitation. In this case, the District Collector and Revenue Divisional
Officer, who were approached by the petitioner, did not respond despite lapse of
long time. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the following direction
could be issued:
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2008 after giving to the petitioner
due opportunity of having heard within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order as per law. Accordingly, this writ petition is
disposed of.
smn
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
District Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Division Officer Office,
Aruppukkottai,
Virudhunagar District.