High CourtsDivision Bench(2024) 02 RAJ CK 0138

Charanjeet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 26 February 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Mehta, J · Rajendra Prakash Soni, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 67 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 294 words
1.

The present habeas corpus petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that 18 labourers have been illegally detained by the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

2.

On query being raised by the court about the maintainability of present petition on the ground of locus standi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 18 persons are friends and relatives of the present petitioner, who had come to work as labourers for respondent No.6.

3.

Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General has produced for perusal of the Court the factual report dated 24.02.2024 and submitted that none of the persons alleged in the present petition have been found to be detained by respondent No.6.

4.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after being aware of the filing of the present petition, the private respondents have freed the labourers and permitted them to go at their own free will.

5.

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.6 has not made any payment to the labourers and prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent No.6 for payment of due wages.

6.

While having its own doubts about the maintainability of the present petition at the instance of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to continue with the present proceedings given the fact that all the purported corpora have been permitted to go at their own will.

7.

No case of illegal detention is made out.

8.

While parting with the case, this court hastens to add that the present petition has been filed in order to recover the money, which is allegedly due from the respondent No.6.

9.

The present petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.