NISHAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite time being granted twice no counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned standing counsel. Accordingly, there is no option left except to proceed to dispose of the petition.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is claimed that the Petitioner is running a small sweet and tea shop by the name of 'Sagar Sweets' in Rampur Maniharan in district Saharanpur. He received a notice dated 19.8.2009 asking him to show cause why he should not be penalized with a penalty of Rs. 20,000 for having employed Meharban, a child labour in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 10.2.1996 passed in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of T. N., 1997 AIR(SC) 699. The Petitioner filed his reply to the notice inter alia stating that the child Meharban was not employed but in fact was a relative and was waiting for someone in the shop. However, by the Impugned order dated 23.10.2009 the Petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 20,000.