Rule Nisi. Counter affidavits of R.1 & R.2 and also R.3 filed.

2. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.173, dt.1-6-2009, Panchayat Raj Rural Development (RDII) Department, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and also Right to move freely and Right to choose Employment of choice, apart from the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.

3. Sri K. Nirmal Kumar Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits of R.1 & R.2 and also R.3 and would maintain that the very issuance of the G.O., is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India since several restrictions had been imposed on Gumpu Mestris. The learned Counsel also would maintain that Mahaboobnagar District is a backward District without any sources of employment of labour and because of lack of irrigation facilities and industries, the labour would be moving to different places in search of work and in search of livelihood and what all is being done by Gumpu Mestris is only to detect the work and inform the same and after going to the work spot, these Gumpu Mestris also would work on par with the ordinary workers and hence there is no question of any exploitation of labour whatsoever. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the very reasons mentioned in the G.O. impugned in the present Writ Petition are unsustainable and in fact far from truth. The learned Counsel also would maintain that certain of the facts narrated in the respective counter affidavits also are not correct statements. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also pointed out that the Revenue and Labour Departments had recognized the system of Gumpu Mestris in Mahaboobnagar District basing on the ground realities of the District and had issued Identity Cards after collecting the prescribed fee of Rs.1,000/-. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the work of Gumpu Mestris being legitimate, the same cannot be found fault inasmuch as, the same is not prohibited by any of the statutes whatsoever. The Counsel also would point out that the system of paying advances of wages to workers has legal sanction under the Interstate Migrants Workers Act, the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 and also the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and when that being so, such advances which are being paid are not in any way prohibited by any law whatsoever. The learned Counsel while further elaborating his submissions had pointed out to the relevant definitions under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) and in particular pointed out to the definitions of advance, bonded debt, bonded labour, bonded labourer and bonded labour system and would maintain that since the action if any of these Gumpu Mestris would not fall within the meaning of expression advances, it cannot be said that the prohibition if any by this Legislation would be applicable even if this G.O. under challenge to be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel also pointed out that on the pretext that Gumpu Mestris are acting as middle-men and there is some element of exploitation, this G.O. had been thought of and instead of protecting the Constitutional Rights under the guise of this G.O., these Gumpu Mestris are being harassed and hence the G.O. is liable to be set aside.

4. Sri Zakir Ali Danish, the learned A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj representing R.1 and R.2 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and also referred to certain of the instances where there had been both harassment and exploitation of these workers and would explain under what cir