The cancellation of a child care institution's registration is a quasi-judicial act requiring a detailed inquiry, and such matters should be heard by a Single Judge.

ORDER :

(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :

1. We have heard the learned advocates on the preliminary objection raised by the learned AGP.

2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B, C and D, as under:-

“B) By issuing writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 passed by Respondent No. 1, State Government served to the petitioner on 13.01.2022 along with covering letter dated 04.01.2022 issued by District Women & Child Development Officer, Latur, Respondent No. 3, cancelling the license of petitioner Institution, Balgram Latur, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 served to the petitioner on 13.01.2022 along with covering letter dated 04.01.2022 issued by District Women and Child Development Officer, Latur, Respondent No. 3, cancelling the license of petitioner Institution, Balgram Latur, may kindly be stayed;

D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may kindly be directed, not to shift/hand over any of the male/female child of the petitioner Institution to any other NGOs;”

3. The Registry of this Court has not raised any objection that this matter would lie before the Single Judge Bench in view of Rule 18 below Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

4. The Petitioner is a registered Institution vide Registration Certificate dated 06.03.2010, under Section 34(3) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act, 2006’), r/w Rule 23 framed under the 2006 Act. In view of the introduction of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act, 2015’), the Petitioner received a new registration certificate dated 08.03.2019, under Section 41(1) of the 2015 Act r/w Rule 27 of the Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Rules, 2018’). By virtue of such registration, permission was granted to the Petitioner to admit 100 female children.

5. The Petitioner claims to be the SOS Children’s Village of India, New Delhi, which is stated to be a reputed NGO at the International Level having establishments in 133 countries and 32 branches across India in different States. In Maharashtra, there are three Balgrams at Alibaug, Pune and Latur. The Petitioner started the residential home at Balgram, Latur. It is further claimed that 200 orphans were admitted in 1993. It further claims that the children were properly nurtured and many of them were married. Further details about various activities in the Balgram at issue, are set out in the pleadings.

6. It is the contention of the Petitioner that one of it’s employees, namely, Sunil Bapu Mandale, was working as a senior co-worker in the Family Strengthening Programme (FSP). He was in the senior category of employees and was selected and appointed at Alibaug. After working for two years, he was transferred to Latur, in 2012. He is a native of village Bhise Wagholi, Taluka and District Latur. For the last more than five years, he is residing at Latur. He is an arrogant and indisciplined employee and threatens the office colleagues and staff. He is taking undue advantage of belonging to the home town ever since he was deployed at Latur.

7. Mr.Mandale was making false complaints against Mrs.Vaishnavi Joglekar, the Head of the Latur Balgram, by interfering in her administration. It was on account of the false complaint of Mr.Sunil Mandale, dated 20.04.2017, that the Petitioner constituted an inquiry committee of two members, one from Gujarat and the other from Hyderabad. After an inquiry, they noticed that the charges leveled by Mr.Mandale against Mrs.Joglekar, are frivolous.

8. Mr.Mandale was thereafter, transferred on administrative exigencies to Anantpur (Haryana), by an order dated 13.09.2018. He was directed