( 1 ) PETITIONER Pratidhi, a non-Government Organization has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 31. 5. 1999, passed by the Additional District Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, filed by respondent No. 3 housekeeper of minor and set aside the order of eviction and sealing of the premises bearing No. D-66, Dayanand Block, Shakar Pur, New Delhi, passed by the Juvenile Welfare Board dated 20. 3. 1999.

( 2 ) THE Juvenile Welfare Board had passed the order dated 20. 3. 1999, on an application of the petitioner, who claimed that the minor was being ill-treated and exploited by respondent No. 3. It was claimed that House No. D-66, Dayanand Block, was attempted to be sold by respondent No. 3 to the detriment of the minor. The appeal of respondent No. 3 housekeeper, had been allowed by the Additional District Judge, holding that the Juvenile Justice Act 1986, did not empower, the Board to deal with the property of minor juvenile or to pass such an order.

( 3 ) THE present writ petition raised only a short legal question regarding the power and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Welfare Board to pass the order dated 20. 3. 1999, which had been set aside by the impugned order dated 31. 5. 1999 passed by Additional District Judge. The writ petition could have been simply disposed of by deciding the above question. However, the sight of the diminutive, hapless 15 years orphan minor girl, sitting in Court with prospect of continuing in Nirmal Chaya Remand Home of the Juvenile Welfare Board looming large, impelled me to depart from the usual legal procedure and norms to travel beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petition and to act as "parens patriae" to the minor by giving directions for her rehabilitation, education and for control and management of her property.

( 4 ) THE irony and misfortune of Geeta s case is that despite the house and other assets devolving upon her and her natural father being alive, yet she is abandoned and forsaken. The natural father of the minor Sh. Uma Shanker was also directed to appear in Court to enquire if he would assume any responsibility for the minor. He submitted that he is re-married and has children and has had no contact with the minor. Further, he is not in a position to assume any responsibility.

( 5 ) LET me notice the factual matrix of the case. Minor Geeta was born to Uma Shanker and Raj Bala on 25. 9. 1985. Within a week of child birth, Geeta s mother expired. Her father, Uma Shanker at that point of time left with a small infant, decided to give her in adoption to distant relatives of his, namely, Itwari Lal and his wife Mansho Devi. Itwari Lal was stated to be employed in the Horticulture department of municipality. Things went of well for minor girl, who blossomed in the care of her adoptive parents. This was not to continue for long. On 10. 7. 1992, Itwari her adoptive father died. This was followed in November, 1995, by the death of her adoptive mother, Mansho Devi. The girl was left an orphan. Respondent No. 3 had been a domestic help working with Mansho Devi. She moved into the house at D-66 Dayanand Block, Shakar Pur, New Delhi with her three sons ostensibly to take care of minor. Respondent No. 3, as per the petitioner, came into control of the minor s property. As per the petitioner, an attempt was made by respondent No. 3 and her sons to illegally transfer and sell the house. However, this did not materialize. Parties involved in the illegal transaction fell off fighting on the sharing of booty. There are allegations of ill-treatment of the minor girl by respondent No. 3 and her family. She was withdrawn from the School in the year 1989 and it is alleged that she was mostly made to do household work. As per the petitioner Society, whose counsellors spent quite sons time with the minor girl, respondent No. 3 unsuccessfully even attempted to persuade Geeta to get married to one of the some of resp