Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rakesh Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 15590 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6344 (22 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15590 of 2006

Rakesh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.

By means of the impugned order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the respondent no.2, recovery of an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been directed to be made from the petitioner under the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986. The submission of the petitioner is that from the order itself it is clear that the notice dated 31.1.2006 had been issued to the petitioner in pursuance of which the said order has been passed. Copy of the said notice has been filed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the notice shows that 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notice was given to the petitioner to submit his reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notice was never served on the petitioner. However, it has been urged that even otherwise the order having been passed before expiry of 15 days period, the same would be bad in the eye of law. It has further been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner imposing the maximum penalty, without assigning any reasons for doing so.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed even before expiry of the period given in notice for submitting the reply, it has clearly been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is, thus, liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 is quashed. However, the competent authority under the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.  

This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner within two days on payment of usual charges.      




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.