SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for assailing the legality and validity of the show cause notice Annex.1 dated 11.10.2004 and recovery notice Annex.2 dated 6.11.2004 issued to him by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhilwara and District Collector, Tonk respectively for the purported recovery of Rs. 1,80,000/- in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (Civil Petition No. 456/1986).
(2.) Mr. Rajesh Joshi learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Harshit Bhurani advocate relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhinmal Cooperative Marketing reported in 2002(4) WLN 208 and so also, the order dated 2.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Chand. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6410/2003) and urged that the impugned show cause notice as well as recovery notice were issued without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act of 1986') and thus, the same cannot stand to scrutiny and deserve to be set aside. He urged that the order imposing penalty is virtually by way of punishment under Section 14 of the Act of 1986. Such punishment could only have been imposed by the competent Court after trying the petitioner in pursuance of a complaint under Section 16 of the Act of 1986 and upon finding him guilty of the charges after a full dressed trial. Thus, he urged that the impugned notices are grossly illegal and deserve to be set aside.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Devkinandan Vyas representing the respondents relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 699 and contended that the direction to effect recovery from the petitioner is unquestionable because the petitioner was found indulged in committing violations of the provisions of the Act of 1986 and thus, as per the directions given at para 27 of the above judgment, the competent authority under the Act of 1986 was perfectly justified in inflicting the penalty upon the petitioner in the above terms. He thus urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;