IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
CWJC No. 190 of 2022
(7.4.2023)
Nari Gunjan ... Petitioner
vs.
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015–Sections 47(7) & 3(xvi) and Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2017–Rule 21 (7) read with Adoption Regulations, 2017 & Adoption Regulations, 2022–Certification of recognition of the petitioner as a specialized Adoption Agency cancelled by the Director, Social Welfare-cum-Vice Chairman, State Child Protection Society, Bihar, Patna–it is a well settled law that the principles of natural justice as a guarrantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure & substance by the judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities–Section 3(xvi) of the Act, 2015 itself provides for adhering to the basic procedural standards of fairness including the right to a fair hearing–Adoption Regulations, 2017 (now replaced/superceded by the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which though shall not be applicable in the present case since impugned order has been passed on 20.12.2021) also bars passing of any order of suspension or revocation of specialized Agency without giving an opportunity to the agency to offer its explanation–if a statutory provision prescribes a particular procedure to be followed by the authority to do an act, it should be done in that particular manner only and if such procedure is not followed in the prescribed manner, as provided under the statutory provisions, then such act of the authority is required to be held null and void ab initio in law–in the present case, the prescribed procedure not followed–impugned order set aside Writ petition allowed. (Paras 17 to 22)
AIR 1950 SC 27, (1975) | SCC 70, (1978) | SCC 405, (1989) | SCC 229, (2005) 6 SCC 321, (2007) 3 SCC 587, (2014) 9 SCC 105, (1993) 3 SCC 259, (2014) 2 SCC 401, (2015) 4 SCC 544–Referred.
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri S.D. Sanjay, assisted by Sri Mohit Agarwal, Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, Ms. Kumari Amrita.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo dated 20.12.2021, issued under the signature of the Director, Social Welfare-cum-Vice Chairman, State Child Protection Society, Bihar, Patna, whereby & whereunder the certificate of recognition of the petitioner as a Specialized Adoption Agency, has been revoked.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Non-Governmental Organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its registered office at village-Jamsaut, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna and the Secretary of the petitioner’s N.G.O. is Ms. Sudha Varghese, who is stated to be a Padma Shree awardee and a social worker, who works for upliftment and benefit of the society at large. The Union of India had floated an Integrated Child Protection Scheme, a centrally sponsored scheme aimed at building a protective environment for children in difficult circumstances, as well as other vulnerable children through Government-Civil Society Partnership. The objective of the said scheme is to bring together multiple existing child protection schemes of the Ministry under one comprehensive umbrella, and integrate additional interventions for protecting children and preventing harm to them.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that by letter dated 15.02.2016, the State Child Protection Society, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar had selected the petitioner organization for running a Specialized Adoption Agency in District-Patna with grant-in-aid support from the State Child Protection Society, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SCPS, Bihar’), and for the said purpose, the Secretary of the petitioner organization was requested to enter into an agreement with the SCPS, Bihar, whereafter, the petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 07.09.2016, and then the respondent no.5, had issued a certificate of recognition of Specialized Adoption Agency vide order dated 07.09.2016 for the period 16.09.2016 to 15.09.2021 and the purpose mentioned therein was for rehabilitation of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children through adoption & non–institutional care & for care, protection and well-being of every child in its charge (as per para 30 of Adoption Guidelines, 2015). The said recognition of the petitioner as a Specialized Adoption Agency was subsequently renewed by an order dated 20.9.2021, passed by the respondent no.5 for the period 16.09.2021 to 15.09.2026.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that suddenly by an order dated 20.12.2021, the Director, Social Welfare-cum-Vice Chairman, SCPS, Bihar has cancelled the recognition of the petitioner as a specialized child adoption agency by invoking powers under Section 41 (7) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2015”), on the purported recommendation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the “C.B.I.”), for blacklisting the petitioner organization and cancelling the contract given to the petitioner. This is how the petitioner is before this Court.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither any show cause notice was issued prior to passing of the impugned order of cancellation dated 20.12.2021, nor the report of the C.B.I., forming the basis for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner as a Specialized Adoption Agency, was ever supplied to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to put forth its defense and unilaterally the recognition of the petitioner organization as a Specialized Adoption Agency has been revoked. The Ld. senior counsel has referred to Section 3 (xvi) and Section 41 (7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Ac
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Indust. Ltd.
State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust
Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
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.
The court emphasized the importance of following the mandatory provisions prescribed by law while working as members of the Child Welfare Committee, and the refusal to issue directions to accept resi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the petitioners as members of the Child Welfare Committee was justified due to their breach of mandatory provisions of the ....
The requirement for a personal hearing before the cancellation of registration under the FCRA is essential when the consequences are severe, as outlined in Section 14(2) of the Act.
The court ruled that the 48-hour period for reserving a child in adoption should start from the receipt of the medical report, emphasizing the violation of natural justice in the debarment process.
The importance of following committee recommendations, principles of natural justice, and equal treatment of institutions in grant-in-aid decisions.
Adoption under Hindu law requires compliance with age restrictions; adoption of a person over 15 years is invalid, impacting entitlement to benefits as an Earthquake Affected Person.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.