JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Respondent Commission in Case No.496/TNCPCR/2016 dated 21.09.2016 and quash the same.)

The writ petition is filed, questioning the validity of the summons issued by the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights under Section 14 (1) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner submits that 'Isha Foundation' is a Trust, founded by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev on 07.01.1992. The Isha Foundation runs 9 Schools in the rural areas and mostly in Tsunami affected areas. Further, they have adopted about 31 Government Schools under its 'School Adoption Programme'.

3. The petitioner states that the children, who all are undergoing training in the foundation are taught basic elements of English and elementary mathematics, required for living. The Foundation imparts Vedic knowledge by following the Gurukula System of education, where students lived and learned in proximity of their guru under the Guru-Shishya Parampara. The children are brought up in an atmosphere of dedication, discipline and focus, whereby each aspect of the child's lifestyle is carefully chosen to orient them towards their inner nature.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that on receipt of the impugned summons, the Administrator approached the respondent on the day and time mentioned along with the files. However, the respondents have not heard the matter on the particular day and there was a delay and therefore, the Administrator returned back. The petitioner states that the authorities had pre-determined their mind during the relevant point of time and they were not ready to hear the case of the petitioner with open mind. Thus, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent objected the said contention by stating that the authorities competent are bound to conduct an enquiry, wherever the necessity arises. In the present case, the summons were issued under Section 14(1) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. In the matter of Deprivation and Violation of Child Rights, Suo-Moto complaint taken by Tamilnadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights under Section 13 (1) (j) (k) of the Act.

6. Section 13 (1) (j) of the said Act contemplates

(j) inquire into complaints and take suo motu notice of matters relating to,-

(i) deprivation and violation of child rights;

(ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children;

(iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities;

Sub Clause (k) contemplates “such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of child rights and any other matter incidental to the above functions.”

7. In view of the Suo-Moto complaint taken by the Commission, summons were issued under Section 14 (1) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

8. The learned Government Advocate reiterated that the actions were taken in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore, the petitioner is bound to respond to the summons and submit their defense in the manner known to law.

9. This Court is of the considered opinion that no writ petition needs to be entertained, challenging the summons issued under the Statute in a routine manner. However, such writ petition is entertainable, if the summons are issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of malafides are raised. Even in case of raising an allegation of malafides, the authority against whom, such an allegation has been raised, must be implemented as a party respondent in the writ proceedings. Thus, the petitioner has to s