2009 Supreme(AP) 24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V.V.S. RAO, J.
St. Theresas Tender Loving Care Home rep. by its Chief Co-ordinator, Hyderabad – Appellant
v.
Chairperson, Board of Control and Supervision of Homes, Office of the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2444 of 2002
Decided on : 28-01-2009
Mr. A.L. Raju, Counsel for the Petitioner. G.P. for Women Development and Child Welfare for Respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. P. Srinivasulu, Counsel for Respondent NO.3.
Headnote:(a) Womens and Childrens Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956, Sections 3 to 8 r/w Sections 7, 8, 13, 15 (2) and 29, Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960; Rules 11 to 14, A.P. Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Rules, 2001; Rules 3 to 15, A.P. Womens and Childrens Institutions (Licensing) Rules, 2001; Sections 2.1, 3.1, 5.16 and 5.18, CARA Guidelines for Adoption from India, 2006 - Application for renewal of Recognition certificate rejected without giving opportunity - However, setting aside the impugned order which is illegal would revive illegality practiced by the petitioner - Such approach not permissible in law.
(b) Constitution of India, Article 226 - Parens Patriae jurisdiction is the right and duty of sovereign to protect persons with disabilities who have no rightful protector - Court cannot ignore the welfare of the orphan children - Directions issued.
St. Theresa's Tender Loving Care Home (hereafter called, TLH) filed instant writ petition aggrieved by an order of Chairperson, Board of Control and Supervision of Homes, O/0 the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare (first respondent herein) (hereafter called, the Director), whereby and where under application of TLH for issue of recognition certificate was rejected. Such a certificate is required under Andhra Pradesh Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Rules, 2001 (Orphanage Rules, for brevity) as well as Andhra Pradesh Women's and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Rules, 2001 (Institution Rules, for brevity) for acting as adoption agency under G.0.Ms.No.16, dated 18-04-2001. The recognition was rejected on the ground that TLH violated Rules of adoption and committed irregularities in procuring children and arranging adoption of them to foster parents. The challenge is based mainly on the ground that TLH being an organization of religious congregation statedly handled all adoptions in 'rule-abidingmanner' and impugned order was issued ignoring relevant facts and circumstances without applying mind.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
2. The factual background is as follows:
Society of Jesus Mary Joseph (SJMJ) is an international organization. It is involved in social welfare and community development activities. Out of three provinces, Hyderabad province is the biggest and it covers number of States. In Andhra Pradesh, they run schools for girls, and tribal children. They run hospitals. They also run shelter homes for street children. SJMJ is registered as St. Theresa Convent Society and is running hospital in the same name. It also runs orphanages. TLH is one such orphanage in existence for long time.
3. The Society obtained certificate of recognition (CoR) from Central Adoptions Resource Agency (CARA, for brevity), third respondent herein, in 1997, for a period of three years. Thereafter the recognition/ licence extended from 06-10-2000 to 05-10-2001. By virtue of such recognition, TLH is authorized to take up in-country and inter-country adoptions. After obtaining CARA recognition statedly TLH was successful in finding placement to children and it was instrumental in bringing happiness to several childless couples in India and abroad. TLH receives children at its doorsteps brought by biological parents or unwed mothers intending to relinquish children due to poverty or due to social stigma. They leave children with a hope that children sired by them find a home. The petitioner makes preliminary enquiry. They counsel biological parents. They are informed that they have right to take back the children within two months from the date of leaving a child at TLH. They are also informed that the relinquished child would be adopted by Indian or foreign parents. After such counseling, TLH would obtain relinquishment deed executed in the presence of witnesses. Though this ideal procedure is adopted, trouble starts when at every step referred to hereinabove, truth takes back seat.
4. TLH is run by Nuns, who rigidly and strictly adhere to a life of celibacy, owe, prayer and service to humanity with altruism of highest order. TLH alleges that due to lack of exposure to external world, these Nuns have no opportunity of cross-check identity of persons who bring children or to verify whether persons are real biological parents or not. They go by trust and belief. Petitioner asserts that children were delivered to TLH by genuine biological parents who want to relinquish an unwanted child. As admitted by petitioner, procedure for receiving child is not foolproof and there is no other procedure laid down by State Government or the Board of Control and Supervision of Homes (the Board, for brevity). TLH has handled more than 50% of cases in country adoptions by giving children to adoptive parents including Government employees, businessmen, lawyers, police officers etc. Simultaneously if the child