Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one M. Pachiyammal has brought forth this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the detenus namely (1) Mani, petitioners husband and the petitioner co-worker (2) Thangaraj and his wife (3) Chinnapillai, their daughter (4) Kasturi and their son (5) Murali, (6) Ayyanar and his wife (7)Perumayi (8) Manikandan and his wife (9) Eswari (10) Ayyandurai and his wife (11) Nithya were all taken for the work of stone breaking by the sixth respondent, quarry owner, but they have not been paid wages and they have been kept as bonded labourers and they were not allowed to go outside. Under the circumstances, a complaint has been sent to respondents 1 to 3 on 4.9.2010 through registered post, but no action has been taken. Hence this application has been brought forth by the petitioner. 2. In response to the above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that a case was registered in Crime No.16 of 2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner against sixth respondent and three others. Investigation is on. The statement of the respondent-police is also recorded. 3. This day, all the detenus are present before this Court, except one Kasturi since she is not well, and all the detenus are set at liberty. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondent-police to proceed with the investigation in the above crime number as one required under law and file a charge sheet before the concerned Court. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a representation has already been given to the District Collector, who is the first respondent herein. According to the learned counsel, the detenus have got to be given sufficient rehabilitation and the same has got to be ordered. In such circumstances, a direction has got to be given to the first respondent to enquire into the matter and pass suitable orders thereon. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of accordingly.