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


Hafiz Mohammad Haneef v. State Of U.P & Others - WRIT - C No. 35874 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 5103 (22 March 2007)


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.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35874 of 1999

Hafiz Mohammad Haneef Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

State has not filed any counter affidavit. First writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.06.1999 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Through the impugned order, it has been found that the petitioner employed six child labours, hence, he must pay Rs.1,20,000/- as damages/penalty @20,000/- per child labour. Second writ petition is directed against order dated 28.06.1999 passed by the same authority holding that the petitioner employed two child labours and directing payment of Rs.40,000/-. In pursuance of Supreme Court judgment dated 10.12.1996, reported in M.C. Mehata Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1997 SC 699, general survey was held in Allahabad in April 1997 as is mentioned in third line of the impugned orders. The survey of April, 1997 held in Allahabad was set aside by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 11.11.98 delivered in several writ petitions including writ petition No.17034/98, M/s Chhota Bhai Munna Bhai & Company and others Vs. State of U.P and another. It is reported that S.L.P., filed against the said judgment, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The last paragraph of the Division Bench judgment is quoted below:-

"In reference to these cases, it is now acknowledged by learned Chief Standing Counsel that the survey were not conducted with due diligence and regard being had to these cases if the subsequent order of the Supreme Court is taken into account, in some cases the notice need to be modulated, more so, in the mater of non-hazardous processes. If that be the case, then, the notice so issued in these cases, qua the petitioners, will need to be quashed. Hereinafter the demands on compensation and notices to prosecute must be based on a diligent and accurate survey, and take into account the two orders of the Supreme Court,10 December 1996 and 18 December 1996. The survey must take into consideration the concern which has been expressed by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, and the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The notices, thus, are quashed."

As is apparent from the third line of the impugned orders, in these writ petitions, the impugned orders are based upon the old survey of April 1997.

Learned counsel has also cited another judgement of this Court delivered in writ petition No.26995/99, M/s Chhota Bhai Munna Bhai Vs. State of U.P. That was a sequel to the earlier Division Bench judgment of the same party. The aforesaid writ petition of 1999 was allowed and order dated 21.06.1999 passed in the said writ petition was quashed on the ground that no fresh survey was conducted. Against the said order dated 17.11.1999, State filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court being S.L.P. (Civil) ... CC 4929 of 2001. The said S.L.P. was decided on 07.08.2001 by the Supreme Court by the following order:-

"It is not disputed that the notices were issued on the basis of the old survey report which was already quashed by the High Court. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to get the re- survey done and take appropriate action as is permissible in law."

In the aforesaid writ petition decided through judgment of this Court dated 17.11.1999, the matter was of Allahabad and the petitioner of the said writ petition was charged with the liability of engaging child labour in bidi making as is the case in the instant writ petition also.

Accordingly, in view of the above judgements, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 25.06.1999 and 28.06.1999 are set aside with same liberty, which was granted by the Supreme Court, which is again quoted below:-

"However, it is open to the respondents to get re-survey done and take appropriate action as is permissible in law."

Date: 22.03.2007



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.