Annual Report 2009-2010 all the 167 cases. The status of prosecution launched against the employers had also not been reported. 4.250 The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka was directed to submit a report dealing specifically with each of the following queries:• • • • • Why the 129 children who were rescued during 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and treated as ‘potential labour’ by the State Government were not given monetary relief in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta’s case? The aforesaid 129 children were working in float-ore mines and why recovery proceedings could not be initiated against the persons holding the ‘pa�a’ of the land where they were working? Why the 51 children who interacted with the NHRC team during their visit in December 2009 were not given monetary relief in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court? Why prompt action for recovery of Rs.20,000/- from each of the employers in the float-ore digging areas of Hospet and Sandur had not been taken for all the 167 child labourers? What is the status of the criminal proceedings launched against the erring 123 employers of Hospet and Sandur? 4.251 This ma�er was considered by the Commission in its Camp Si�ing at Bengaluru on 15 September 2010 and the Commission inter alia observed and directed as under: “Many child labourers who were found working at various places were rescued. Vide proceedings dated 2 August 2010, the Commission raised specific queries and requested the Chief Secretary, Government. of Karnataka to submit a report. Today the report is submi�ed. A�er discussing the ma�er at length, now it is stated that the ma�er will be re-examined in the light of the reports already filed earlier and a fresh report will be submi�ed.” 4.252 In response a point-wise report was received from the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Karnataka in the Commission, which is under consideration. (h) Right to Health 40. Death of Rajender Kumar in Bareilly Mental Hospital, U�ar Pradesh (Case No 26166/24/2004-2005) 4.253 The Commission vide its proceedings dated 10 November 2004 took cognizance of a complaint received from Shri Mahender Kumar. As per the complaint, the complainant’s brother, namely, Rajender Kumar was a mental patient and was under the treatment of one Dr. Rakesh Saxena in a private mental hospital. However, as the cost of treatment was high, the complainant got his brother shi�ed to the Mental Hospital in Bareilly. The resultant outcome of this was that Dr. Saxena got annoyed and threatened the patient Rajendra Kumar of dire NHRC 57