JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the District Collector, Coimbatore District, to hold an enquiry against respondent No.2, for having violated the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. 2. The petitioner is native of Namakkal and is living with her husband, namely, Mr.Chennappan. The couple has a daughter, namely, Miss.Vaijayanthi, aged 13 years. The petitioner and her family members are doing the work of power-loom operators at various places and shift their residence from time to time at the place of work. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner and her husband were employed as power-loom operators, whereas their daughter was employed as assistant in the power-loom factory owned by respondent No.2 for more than a year. 4. At the time of entry into service, the petitioner took a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as advance for family expenses from the second respondent in the month of December, 2007. 5. The loan was advanced on the condition that the petitioner and her family members will not leave the job till the loan was settled, along with interest. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 compelled the petitioner and her family members to work for more than 15 hours a day as bonded labourers. This was the treatment meted out even to the daughter of the petitioner, aged 14 years. 7. That the petitioner and her family members were paid only a sum of Rs.450/-(Rupees four hundred and fifty only) or Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) per week, after deducting the interest on the loan advanced and according to respondent No.2, still a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) is outstanding against the petitioner and her family members. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that they were illegally confined in the factory. The petitioner also alleges that she was ill-treated and respondent No.2 asked her husband to sell his kidney to pay the amount. However, the petitioner, along with her family members, escaped from the clutches of respondent No.2, on 25th January, 2009. 9. It is alleged that respondent No.2 treated the petitioner and her family members as bonded labourers. The petitioner also alleges that she was ill-treated and respondent No.2 asked her husband to sell his kidney to pay the amount. However, the petitioner, along with her family members, escaped from the clutches of respondent No.2, on 25th January, 2009. 9. It is alleged that respondent No.2 treated the petitioner and her family members as bonded labourers. The petitioner, therefore, filed a representation with respondent No.1 as also to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam, Coimbatore District and Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, for restoring their belongings and for granting protection. However, no details of belonging has been mentioned in the writ. 10. It is also submitted that the petitioner and her family members are temporarily staying and living with the aid and assistance of one Thiru.Srinivasan, who is a social worker, and has helped the petitioner to file representations to respondent No.1 and other concerned officials and thereafter, made arrangements to engage an advocate to file this writ petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that Section 6(6) of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, provides that if the restoration and the possession of any property referred to in sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) is not made within thirty days of the commencement of this Act, the aggrieved person may, within such time as may be prescribed, apply to the prescribed authority for the restoration of the possession of such property and the prescribed authority may, after giving the creditor a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct the creditor to restore to the applicant the possession of the concerned property within such time as may be specified in the order. 12. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 provides that the attachment made before the commencement of this Act, for recovery of any bonded debt, is deemed to have been vacated on enforcement of the Act. 13. It also provides that if any such property is removed from a person at the time of attachment, it has to be restored back. 14. Section 7(2) deals with the delay in restoring the property, which entitles the labourer to recover from the mortgagee or holder of the lien, charge or encumbrance, such mesne profits as may be determined by the Civil Court. 15. 14. Section 7(2) deals with the delay in restoring the property, which entitles the labourer to recover from the mortgagee or holder of the lien, charge or encumbrance, such mesne profits as may be determined by the Civil Court. 15. The facts pleaded in this case show that Section 6(6) or 7(2) has no application to the facts of the case, as it is not the case of any property of the petitioner was attached or kept by respondent No.2 as security for the loan advanced to the petitioner as bonded debt. 16. Nothing has been placed on record showing any application, which may have been filed by invoking the provisions of this Act for restoration of any property, which may have been attached for recovery of the loan. 17. It may also be noted that on 24.02.2011, this Court passed the following order:- "The above matter is listed today i.e. 24-02-2011, under the caption 'Default Cases', for non-compliance of the requirements of the Registry, including the payment of batta. 2. The concerned counsels are directed to pay the batta and to comply with the other requirements of the Registry, on or before 11-3-2011, as a last chance, and to file proof of compliance, immediately, thereafter. 3. On non-compliance of the requirements of the Registry, on or before the specified date, as directed by this Court, the M.P./W.P. shall stand dismissed, automatically, in so far as the concerned respondent(s) is/are concerned, without further reference to this Court." This order was allowed to attain finality. Once the writ petition against respondent No.2 has been dismissed, against whom the allegations have been made, no directions, as envisaged, can be issued to respondent No.1 for holding any enquiry, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. The writ petition, besides being liable to be dismissed in view of the order passed by this Court on 24.02.2011, also deserves to be dismissed, as no cause of action is shown to proceed under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. 19. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.