HCP/176/2002 of M.A.RANGANATHAN Vs COLLECTOR on 30 December 2002

:ORDER

(Order of this Court was made by V.S.SIRPURKAR,J.)

This order shall dispose of two Habeas Corpus petitions, namelyH.C.P.Nos.176 and 177 of 2002. Both these petitions have been filed by oneMr.M.A.Ranganathan, son of Ayyavoo, describing himself as President, SalemDistrict Mother Theresa Community Service Society, V.O.C. Nagar, Omalur Post,Salem District.

2. While in H.C.P.No.176 of 2002 there are about 7 persons joined as private party respondents, in H.C.P.No.177 of 2002 about 6 persons have beenjoined as private party respondents. The common allegation in both these writpetitions is that these party respondents have kept under themselves 24 bondedlabourers (in H.C.P.No.176 of 2002) and 66 bonded labourers (in H.C.P.No.177of 2002).

3. During the pendency of these petitions, this Court passed an order observing that this appeared to be a case of bonded labour and issued notice.The allegations made in the petitions were to the effect that the bondedlabour were kept by these persons for working their handlooms. The Courtdirected thorough enquiry and after that enquiry a report has been placedbefore us, which is common to both the writ petitions. The report is signedby the Superintendent of Police, Salem District.

4. The report itself suggests firstly that the story of there being 24 bonded labourers (H.C.P.No.176 of 2002) and 66 bonded labourers (H.C.P.No.177 of 2002) is a myth, that the statements have been recorded fromthose alleged bonded labourers, whose names were given along with the two writpetitions. The report further reveals that some three persons including thepresent petitioner have collected addresses and had sought contributions fromthem to the tune of Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- each and promised them that theywould get the loan of Rs.20,000/-, that is normally given to bonded labourers.The report says that the police officers had made an enquiry by directlyrecording the statement of these persons who are allegedly under the bondage.It is also pointed out that even the petition for 66 persons (H.C.P.No.1 77 of2002) is a concocted one at the instance of one Thiru R. Krishnan andTmt.Maheswari.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has the whole record withhim to suggest that there is nothing like bonded labour much less in the caseof the names cited in the petition nor there are any party respondents keepingany bonded labourers for their own work.

6. Under the circumstances, finding that the both the writ petitions

have absolutely no merit, we express our deep consternation of this tendencyof filing the writ petitions in a most irresponsible manner and stylingthemselves as the representatives of some society. In fact, we have had inthe report of the Police that these are all paper organisations without anywork whatsoever. We find that this is a blatant misuse of judicial process.We saddle the petitioner with the cost of Rs.2000/- each in both the writpetitions. These writ petitions are dismissed.

Index : YesInternet : Yes

sasi

To:1. The CollectorSalem DistrictSalem.2. The Revenue Divisional OfficerSalem DistrictSalem.3. The Superintendent of PoliceSalem DistrictSalem.4. The Special OfficerBonded LabourChennai.5. The TahsildarSalem DistrictSalem.6. The Inspector of PoliceCentral Crime Branch,Salem District, Salem.7. The Public ProsecutorHigh Court, Madras.