Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The petitioner carries on business of manufacturing Biri and is a registered partnership firm. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner appointed contractors for supplying Tendu leaf and tobacco for the purpose of rolling Biri to various persons in their residences and said persons after having rolled Biri supply the same to the Contractors who in turn brings the same to the factory of the petitioner which is ultimately sold as finished product. The petitioner was served with notices contending that in survey, it was found that the petitioner/contractors had engaged child labour in violation of provisions contained In the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The notices were challenged In writ petition No. 17034 of 1998. M/s. Chhota Bhai Munna Bhai and Company v. State of U. P. and others. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition by order dated 11.11.1998 and quashed the notices challenged. In the said judgment, various findings have been arrived at including the findings whereby survey held was deprecated strongly holding that Inspectors involved in the survey did not satisfy the requirement of law and. therefore, survey was bad. Observation was made therein that demands on compensation and notices to prosecute must be based on a diligent and accurate survey and take Into account two orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(2.) Subsequent notice issued to the petitioner again was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7601 of 1999, M/s. Chhota Bhai Munna Bhai and Company v. State of U. P. and others, wherein taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1997 SC 699 and aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of the present petitioner and decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of A. K. Agarwal v. Assistant Labour Commissioner and others, 1998 All CJ 1371, the petitioner was granted liberty to file objection against the report of the Inspector and authority concerned was directed to decide the same. In terms of aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated 21.6.1999 at Annexure-1 to the writ petition was passed whereby the contentions of the petitioner were rejected and recovery was directed on the basis of notices already Issued. Challenging the same, present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) State respondents filed counter-affidavit and in view of their contentions raised in course of earlier hearing, liberty was granted and accordingly supplementary counter-affidavit was filed. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder-affidavit.;