Judgment

BHAGWATI, C.J.I. :- In this appeal by special leave the appellant who is a free lance journalist by profession and a Member of the Maharashtra State Legal Aid and Advice Committee, seeks to challenge the judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered on 4th February, 1985 on a writ petition filed by her.

2. In the writ petition she made grievance about the working of the New Observation Home located at Mankhurd which is maintained and managed by the Childrens Aid Society, Bombay. According to her, the Childrens Aid Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and has also been treated as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act of 1950. The Society was founded on 1st May, 1926. The Chief Minister of Maharashtra State is the ex officio President and the Minister for Social Welfare is the Vice-President of the Governing Council of the Society. The said Society receives grants from the State. It has set up a Remand Home at Umerkhadi within Bombay area and it is now run as an Observation Home under the provisions of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Society runs three observation homes - one at Umerkhadi established in 1927, the second at Mankhurd established in 1960 and the third, the New Observation Home also at Mankhurd. The appellants letter of 22nd August, 1984 was treated as a writ petition by the High Court wherein the grievances made by the petitioner were of four types as set out by the High Court in para 23 of its judgment

(1) Delay in repatriation or restoration of children to their parents in respect of whom orders for repatriation were made by the Juvenile Court ;

(2) Non-application of mind in the matter of taking children into custody and directing production before the Juvenile Court;

(3) Absence of proper follow-up action after admission of the children in the Observation Homes, in particular, grievance was made that the Child Welfare Officers were not performing their duties and such failure led to continued detention of children without any justification; and

(4) Detention in such circumstances was illegal and the condition very often resulted in harassment to the children so detained.

3. The Society appeard before the High Court and filed counter-affidavits denying allegations of facts raised in the writ petition and both parties produced documents. The High Court went into the matter at considerable length, found some of the allegations to be without any justification and yet others were accepted. In paras 44 and 45 of the impugned judgment, the High Court colated its directions and recommended thus :

"(A) (i) A copy of the repatriation order passed by the Juvenile Court should always be sent to the Juvenile Aid Police Unit as it is now sent to the Observation Home. The order should specify that the police should implement that order within a week. What should be done by the police and the observation home in case the order is not implemented is mentioned in para 27 of this judgment;

(ii) The possibility of detailing sufficient number of personnel in the police department, for the work connected with the Bombay Children Act should be speedily considered (Para 28) ;

(iii) The Government should immediately review the resolution dated 2nd September, 1965 issued by the Education and Social Welfare Department, which fixes the allowances for escort duties done by voluntary organisations (Para 29):

(iv) It is also recommended that the Government should consider the constitution of an Escort Service which can consist of police personnel, youth Volunteers and Government servants (latter part of para 29):

(v) The observation homes and the JAPU should not wait for a sufficient number of children being ready for being escorted before implementing the orders passed by the Juvenile Court (Para 30).

(B) (i) The Magistrate presiding over the Juvenile Court should insist, in the case of local children, that the police must trace the parents of the children within a