JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed to challenge the communication dated 30.09.2020 issued by respondent no.4 – the District Social Welfare Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. Thereby, the earlier approval granted to the petitioner no.1 to run an old age home has been cancelled and its existing inmates-forty seven in number, directed to be shifted to another old age home run by respondent no.5.

3. Relevant to the dispute, it may be noted that petitioner no.1 is a registered society. It established the facility namely, an old age home at District Sant Kabir Nagar with a capacity to accommodate 150 senior citizens. Petitioner no.2 has described himself as the Superintendent of the old age home in question. On 15.03.2017, it was granted approval by respondent no. 2 – the Director, Social Welfare, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, to run that facility. The initial term of that approval was three years. The State has also granted aid to the petitioner to run the said old age home. Almost at the end of three years, an inspection is stated to have been conducted on 29.02.2020 at the facility being run by the petitioner, by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Lucknow, U.P. A nineteen-point report was prepared by the said Deputy Director in his inspection note. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the State.

4. It is the case of the petitioner, without any jurisdiction and without issuing any show cause notice or calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the impugned communication dated 30.09.2020 was issued by the Director, Social Welfare, cancelling the approval of the petitioner facility, for a solitary reason that that facility was not as per the government norms. No other violation has been made or elaborated in the impugned communication.

5. Various grounds of challenge have been pressed. Considering the wide impact of such action by the State authorities, on the vulnerable and exposed members of the society, besides affecting the activity of the petitioners, we have proceeded to consider the dispute raised by the petitioner, in its widest amplitude.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State, we find, under section 19 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the State Government is obligated to establish such number of old age homes in each district as may be necessary, the minimum being one old age home in each district of the State. Under section 19(2) read section 32 (2) (d) of the Act, the State Government has been delegated, amongst others, the power to frame Rules to provide for a Scheme for management of old age homes and to prescribe standards and types of services to be provided as may be necessary for medical care, entertainment etc. of the inmates of such old age homes. Thus, The Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) have been framed and enforced by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules read as under:

"20. Scheme for management of oldage homes for indigent senior citizens. – (1) Oldage homes established under Section 19 of the Act shall be run in accordance with the following norms and standards:

(A) The home shall have physical facilities and shall be run in accordance with the operational norms as laid down in Schedule III.

(B) Inmates of the home shall be selected in accordance with the following procedure:

(a) applications shall be invited at appropriate intervals, but at least once each year, from indigent senior citizens, as defined in Section 19 of the Act, desirous of living in the home;

(b) in case the number of eligible applicants on any occasion is more than the number of places available in a home for admission, sel