JUDGMENT

1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, being the Director of Specialised Adoption Agency (in short SAA), Kilkari (Udaan), has filed this petition, seeking following reliefs:

(i) quashment of the recommendation dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), which is in the shape of an order;

(ii) to take action against respondents 1 and 2 for proceeding against the petitioner arbitrarily, in biased manner and in violation of principles of natural justice, without conducting independent enquiry;

(iii) a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to act upon the object and spirit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, the JJ Act), and not to demoralise the stakeholders who are working procedurally as per law;

(iv) to pass orders for displacement of the authorities, who are on key posts, from office;

(v) a suitable direction for the upliftment of adoption in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and vi) any other relief which can be granted in the facts of the case.

2. The impugned recommendation dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure-P-1), which is in the shape of an order, has been passed by respondent No.3- Joint Secretary, Member, Steering Committee, Central Adoption Resource Authority (in short CARA), recommending to the Government of Madhya Pradesh to revoke the recognition granted to SAA Kilkari (Udaan) with immediate effect; transfer the children residing in the said SAA to another SAA and remove the linkages of the CCIs with the SAA for linking them to another SAA(s); and also to initiate further inquiry on the functioning of the Child Welfare Committee and to take punitive actions, as per the provisions of the JJ Act and other legal provisions.

3. The said recommendation has been assailed by the petitioner on several grounds, inter alia , stating that the reasons to make the recommendations, in the shape of an order, as referred, are on incorrect facts as explained in para 5.11 of the writ petition, and tainted with mala fide, in arbitrary exercise of power and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is said, CARA demanded certain information and papers from SAA, Kilkari (Udaan), vide Annexure P-17, dated 06.08.2018, which was submitted with details, vide Annexure P-18 on 14.08.2018. On receiving the same, surprisingly, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, abruptly the order impugned has been passed by respondent No.3 on 01.11.2018, making recommendations against the SAA, Kilkari (Udaan), which are not in consonance to the provisions of law and also in excess to the power and the authority. It is further stated that the entire action is with a mala fide intention, because the inaction of the CARA has been reported to the Minister by the SAA, Kilkari (Udaan), and also to the High Court, on which the High Court has taken cognizance. The CARA had filed the reply in the said case, mentioning incorrect facts, which has been taken note by the High Court, making observations against the CEO, CARA. The Court, with intent to find out the truth in the allegations as alleged against the petitioner in the showcause notice, observed that it may be looked into by the higher authority that includes Steering Committee because the CEO, CARA, is biased with it. The direction issued by the Court has been misinterpreted by respondent No.3 though it is not against the petitioner. It is urged that the allegations alleged in the show-cause notices dated 05.01.2018 and 10.01.2018 against the petitioner, as per the decision of the Civil Revision Nos.258 and 260 of 2017, dated 12.02.2018, were required to be examined by the higher authority, in view of the conduct of the CEO, CARA, but it has been dealt maliciously by Mr. Deepak Kumar, CEO, CARA, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Women & Child Development, therefore, they have been impleaded in their personal capacity as respondents 5 and 6 respectively, with sp