JUDGMENT Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - The instant petition has been filed as 'Public Interest Litigation' expousing the cause of the bonded labourers for their rescue from the place of their employment at village Ganganagar, Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana and for granting benefits under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourer, 2016 (hereinafter referred to 'Scheme of 2016') to all rescued bonded labourers working at village Ganganagar, Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana. 2. Petitioner No.1 claiming himself to be a social activist, working for the marginalized sections of society and earlier also, he has worked and contributed in rescue and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. Petitioner No.2 has been shown to be a labourer, who escaped from the bondage of Respondents No.7. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell, are that, about 4-5 months prior to filing of writ petition, one brick kiln owner by misleading labourers from the State of Chhattisgarh, address of whom were shown in a table at paragraph No.2, took them to work there, but after sometime, he started exploiting, physically assaulting and also kept them in bondage. It was pleaded that about 57 persons/labourers have been taken by Respondent No.7 to work at his brick kiln unit situated at village Ganganagar, Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana, but after sometime, all the labourers were made bonded labourers. They were not paid wages and Respondent No.7 used to abuse and assault them. When they asked for payment of their wages, Respondent No.7 did not pay the same and even not permitted to leave the place of work, village Ganganagar, Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana. When one of such labourer, namely, Badri Prasad S/o Laindas, Village Koni (Lawer), Police Station Masturi paid loan amount through his son, who was working as labour at Raipur, then he (Badri Prasad) has been let to leave the place of work. When one of such labourer, namely, Badri Prasad S/o Laindas, Village Koni (Lawer), Police Station Masturi paid loan amount through his son, who was working as labour at Raipur, then he (Badri Prasad) has been let to leave the place of work. After returning back, Badri Prasad submitted a complaint on 02.04.2019 to various authorities and thereafter, filed this writ petition with following reliefs : "10.1 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to rescue the bonded labour victims enlisted in the petition; 10.2 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate criminal proceedings against all accused responsible for keeping the laborers in bondage, physical assault, non-payment of legal wages; 10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant a minimum amount of Rs.20,000/- as interim relief to each rescued bonded laborer and their families; 10.4 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to rehabilitate the bounded labourers enlisted in the petition, and others who have escaped earlier according to the provisions of Central Sector Scheme for the Rehabilitation of Bonded Labour of 2016; 10.5 Pass any other or further order (s) as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. During the pendency of writ petition, cause-title of writ petition was amended and Respondent No.7, who is said to be owner of brick kiln unit situated at village Ganganagar, Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana is arrayed as one of the party Respondents. 5. Initially, one affidavit has been filed by Shri Mahesh Sinha, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur mentioning therein that after receiving complaint by Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, direction was issued to Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi for sending Police force for rescuing the bonded labourers. At the same time, communication was also sent to Superintendent of Police, Peddapalli, Telangana. The statement of Badri Prasad and one Badrika Bai (bonded labourers) were recorded, labourers have been rescued and they have sent to their residents safely. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that all 64 bonded labourers have been rescued, but the wages are still remaining outstanding with brick kiln owner and this information has been sent by Station House Officer, Masturi to Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. 6. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that all 64 bonded labourers have been rescued, but the wages are still remaining outstanding with brick kiln owner and this information has been sent by Station House Officer, Masturi to Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. 6. Subsequently, reply to the writ petition was filed by Respondent/State, in which, it was pleaded that on the basis of complaint, Police Officials were sent to the address where brick kiln unit is situated and labourers who have been alleged to be kept in bondage were rescued. The information was also sought for from Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana about registration of any offence against brick kiln owner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur informed that after rescue, labourers were sent to their residents. The enquiry was made from the labourers and they have stated that they went to work after Deepawali festival and as the owner of the brick kiln unit i.e. Respondent No.7 was not paying them their wages regularly, the dispute arose and on the basis of complaint made by one colabourer, namely, Badri Prasad, proceedings were initiated and theycame back after five months. No liberation certification/release certificate was issued by competent authority of District Peddapalli, Telangana, therefore, as per Rules, benefit of rehabilitation under the Scheme has not been provided to them. The Assistant Labour Officer, Godavari Khani has sent a report dated 17.04.2019 in reply to the letter dated 04.04.2019 of Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur mentioning therein that he reached to the brick kiln unit, where he found 21 workers and on being asking from them, it was stated that they want to go to their native place, they have not complained anything about physical or mental harassment. They have stated that they were getting their payment/wages regularly and there are no dues pending to be received from the employer. The employer was ready to send back the labourers to their native place, for which, he made arrangement of train fare along with refreshment allowances to the workers. 7. In the reply, it was pleaded that the labourers, who have been rescued, are seasonal migrant labourers and they have not made any complaint to the Police or Labour Officer with regard to the fact that they have been kept as bonded labourers, therefore, no cognizance of offence was taken against Respondent No.7 nor any proceeding has been drawn against him. The rescued labourers are not entitled for any benefit under the Rehabilitation Scheme as they were not bonded labourers, but are seasonal migrant labourers and they went to village Ganganagar, Police Station Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana for working with their own will. 8. Respondent No.7 also submitted reply and denied the pleadings and allegations mentioned in the complaint. It was pleaded that Petitioners have not filed this petition with clean hands. It was further pleaded that one of the Petitioners, namely, Amar Prakash Sonwani is natural brother of Ravi Sonwani and Rajesh Sonwani, having direct interest in filing this writ petition for wrongful gain. Ravi Sonwani has taken Rs.8 Lacs for providing skilled labourers from Bilaspur and in good faith, Respondent No.7 has paid the said amount by way of Rs.3 Lacs through bank transaction and Rs.5 Lacs in cash. Respondent No.7 is running a registered brick kiln unit having registration certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar. Respondent No.7 has provided facilities for labourers at his brick kiln unit like residential rooms, rest rooms, hospital, labour rooms, schools, drinking water facility etc. and other facilities of day to day requirement. Respondent No.7 or his family members are not having any criminal record, which has also been verified. The Assistant Labour Officer, Godavari Khani after enquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar mentioning therein that on question put to the workers, they stated that they are not willing to work with Respondent No.7, but accepted that they were being paid their wages regularly and submitted report in his favour. 9. There is no dispute that after filing of writ petition, 57 persons named in the writ petition along with others have been rescued and return back to their native place and thereby relief No.10.1 is satisfied. 10. So far as other reliefs are concerned, the proceeding is to be filed before the appropriate authority/competent authority under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 for registering or initiating criminal proceeding against any person. 11. The reliefs as sought for by the Petitioners in writ petition as relief Nos.10.3 and 10.4, application is to be filed by the labourers in an individual capacity mentioning the required essential facts and only after conclusion of summary enquiry, appropriate orders could be passed by the competent authority as mentioned in the Scheme of 2016. 12. 11. The reliefs as sought for by the Petitioners in writ petition as relief Nos.10.3 and 10.4, application is to be filed by the labourers in an individual capacity mentioning the required essential facts and only after conclusion of summary enquiry, appropriate orders could be passed by the competent authority as mentioned in the Scheme of 2016. 12. The report sent by Assistant Labour Officer, Godavari Khani dated 17.04.2019 mentions that no complaint of physical or mental harassment and they were getting their wages/payments regularly and there is no dues of wages pending with Respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 sent the labourers to their native place by making arrangement of fare and other travelling needs. Looking to the rival contentions made by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State and also the documents relied upon by them, there are disputed facts involved in this case, which could not be decided by this Court, but can only be decided after recording evidence of respective parties, for which, the competent authority has been prescribed under the Scheme of 2016. 13. Chapter 6 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to 'Act of 1976') prescribes for offences and procedure for trial. Section 21 prescribes that the offences to be tried by Executive Magistrate and sub-section (2) of Section 21 mentions that an offence under this Act may be tried summarily by a Magistrate. Under the Scheme the Act of 1976, the powers to punish any person committing an offence under the Act of 1976 are liable to be punished after trying the complaint/case by the Executive Magistrate on whom the powers have been confirmed by the State Government. The petitioners may approach to the jurisdictional Magistrate for the reliefs as claimed by them under paragraph No.10.2 of the writ petition. 14. Under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labour, 2016 under which petitioners are seeking relief rehabilitation of the bonded labours enlisted in the writ petition and perusal of the scheme would show that the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate can extend the benefit under the Scheme of 2016 in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Scheme of 2016. As we have already held that disputed facts are involved in the case, the relief sought for by the petitioners in paragraph No. 10.4 can be granted only after recording statement of parties by the competent authority. 15. The Petitioners admitted that they already succeeded in getting their relief as asked for in paragraph 10.1 because all the labourers have returned to their home and for other reliefs, they are required to approach before the competent authority by way of filing appropriate proceedings. The Petitioners/affected labourers are granted liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances, for the reliefs No.10.2 to 10.4 as claimed by them in this writ petition. 16. With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed off.