K. Pompanna, vs The Deputy Commissioner, on 2 January, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K. Pompanna, vs The Deputy Commissioner, on 2 January, 2017

Bench: G. Narendar

                          :1:


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

             W.P. NO.109557/2016 (L-RES)

BETWEEN

K. POMPANNA, S/O. DYAMAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: DANAYAKANAKERE VILLAGE,
HOSPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI.

                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADV.)


AND

1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
      BALLARI

2.    THE LABOUR INSPECTOR,
      SANDUR CIRCLE,
      SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI.

3.    THE TAHASILDAR,
      SANDUR, TQ: SANDUR,
      DIST: BALLARI.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAVI. V. HOSAMANI, AGA.)
                           :2:


     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARFTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:- a) QUASH
THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED:23.05.2016 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND D).

     b) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO TAKE ANY
ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE RECOVERY
AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES IN
FUTURE PERTAINING TO CHILD LABOUR CASE.


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the notice to a defaulter, issued by the second respondent.

3. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner was prosecuted under the provision of the Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, that the prosecution in CC No.1005/06 resulted in acquittal of the petitioner on the premise that the :3: prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor who had issued Exs.P5 and P6, certifying the age of the said minors said to have been employed by the petitioner in the mines.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the order of acquittal, the respondent has now issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- per child. In this regard, two notices demanding Rs.20,000/- respectively have been issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred objection. The said notices are dated 23/5/2016. The reply is dated 10/6/2016.

5. It is apparent that no coercive steps have been initiated by the respondents till now. Despite the same, the petitioner is before this Court apprehending coercive action.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present writ petition is premature. The petitioner is before this Court impugning the notices to which he has :4: filed objection. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the objections have been either considered or rejected. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is wholly misconceived.

The petition being devoid of merits requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vmb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court