Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate of our High Court has come up with following prayers:- (i) to command the respondents to frame bye-laws in regard to opening of Creches in the City of Chandigarh and for their maintenance, (ii) The Respondents should be directed to make provision for imposing heavy penalties on the violators, who are charging heavy rates for keeping children in their Creches, so that the lives of the tinytots, who are our national assets, require a special attention and affection for the development of the country as per the view of our President. 2 Respondent No. 2, the Municipal Corporation has taken a stand that functions of opening and maintaining Creches in Chandigarh or to frame bye-laws is not its function and, therefore, it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this proceedings. 3. Shri Sanjeev Sharma, the learned standing Counsel of the Union of India, representing the Chandigarh Administration (respondent No. 1) has brought on record the orders dated 14.2.2003 passed by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh as contained in Annexure R-1 and R-2, the orders dated 23,4.2003 passed by the Secretary Social Welfare, Chandigarh Administration as contained in Annexures R-3 and R-4, a perusal of which shows that necessary steps have been taken in regard to the creches. 4. Having heard Shri Kapil Kakkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel of the Union of India, representing Respondent No. 1 and perused the afore-mentioned documents, we are of the view that prayer made by the petitioner has become infructuous. 5. Now we come to the second prayer of the petitioner. It would have been better had there been penal provisions in the orders. However, from the submissions made by Shri Kapil Kakkar, it is clear to us that our Parliament has already enacted the Children Act, 1960 , Section 41 of which deals with punishment for cruelty to child, which reads as under :- 41. It would have been better had there been penal provisions in the orders. However, from the submissions made by Shri Kapil Kakkar, it is clear to us that our Parliament has already enacted the Children Act, 1960 , Section 41 of which deals with punishment for cruelty to child, which reads as under :- 41. Punishment for cruelty to child - (1) Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over a child assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental and physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. (2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sub-section (1) unless the complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the Administrator or an officer authorised by him in this behalf." 6. A bare perusal of the afore-mentioned provisions makes abundantly clear that if a child, who is kept under the care of any Creche, the owner thereof will face a punishment, if he causes any unnecessary mental and physical suffering to the child kept under his control. 7. With the afore-mentioned findings/observations, this writ petition is disposed of but without cost. 8. It goes without saying that if any owner of the creche violates the bye- laws, the administration will take suitable steps as per the orders in question. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Shri Sanjeev Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India within one week.