A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. In all these three writ petitions filed in public interest, a disturbing problem which our society faces, day in and day out, has been highlighted. This conundrum relates to child trafficking. It is this menace prevailing in our society, which has been raised in all these writ petitions, albeit from different perspective. However, the primary objective and aim of all these writ petitions remains the same, viz., how to eradicate, or at least reduce to significant level, this peril. In order to appreciate the issue, we shall take note of the facts which have led to the filing of these writ petitions.

2. Kalpana Pandit is the petitioner in this case whose daughter is espoused by social activist/Advocate, Ms. Aparna Bhat. The petitioner is a domestic servant (illiterate lady), driven by poverty, working as domestic servant in various houses from time to time to earn the minimum livelihood for her family and sustaining the family for fulfilling the daily needs. Her family has roots in West Bengal. However, due to acute poverty and incapable to get any employment, she came to Delhi sometime in 1995-96, i.e. five to six years ago before filing this writ petition. The respondent No.4, viz., Sahyog Placement Sanstha is a placement agency, which makes arrangements for providing domestic helps to the residents of this city. Sometime in March, 1999, the petitioner handed over her daughter to this Sanstha, whose sole proprietor is Sunita Sen, for placement of her daughter as domestic help in some residence. The reason was that the petitioner had fallen serious sick for a long duration, which compelled her to stay at home, as she was not able to work because of the said sickness. Family, in any case, needed sustenance as there was nobody else to support the family financially, no alternative was left to the petitioner to compel her daughter Jharna to take up work.

3. Jharna started working as domestic help at the residence of respondent No.4. She believed that her daughter would be safe and secure with Sunita Sen. According to the petitioner, she did not know that Sunia Sen, who is one of placement agent would place Jharna as domestic help in other people?s houses.

4. It is averred in the petition that in April 1999 when the petitioner recovered from her illness, she went to the house of Sunita Sen to meet her daughter and then only she came to know that Jharna was working as housemaid at the residence of some Mr. & Mrs. Kaul in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. She was shocked and surprised as no prior consent of the petitioner was obtained before taking such a step and she was not even informed about this. The petitioner pleads that with great difficulty, she managed to get the phone number of her daughter?s employer and tried to contact her daughter, Jharna on that phone. However, she was not permitted to talk with Jharna. The petitioner was disturbed and tensed at the sudden disappearance of her daughter, but could not be able to comprehend whom to approach for the help. She went to the respondent No.4 again and respondent No.4 had arranged the petitioner to talk with her daughter Jharna on telephone. However, she had no idea where the respondent No.4 had called. She was concerned and worried about the safety of her growing daughter and wanted to meet her on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. She along with her son went to the Noida house, the address whereof was provided to the petitioner on phone. However, she could not be able to meet her daughter there. She made repeated attempts for this purpose by visiting Noida again and again, but didn?t succeed. Her continues requests made to respondent No.4 also did not yield any results. She even tried to approach Mehrauli Police Station, but was not provided with any help or guidance there as well. While she was reconciling with the tragedy that had struck her, after a lapse of one and a half years or so, she was informed that her daughter Jharna was missing since 29.08.2000 and