Due process requires reasonable opportunity to be heard before cancellation of registration under child protection laws.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a Charitable Society having obtained registration under the Charitable Societies Registration Act. The petitioner is conducting 10 Balasramams (Shelter Homes for Children). With respect to the Balasramam conducted at Adoor, pursuant to an incident which occurred on 01.03.2020 involving certain persons who are stated to have visited the Balasramam, and which was reported in the newspapers, proceedings were taken by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Child Rights Protection Act , leading to the issuance of the order at Ext.P6 directing cancellation of the registration granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act . It is challenging Ext.P6 that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Thoufeek Ahamed, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent herein.

3. The main contention raised in the writ petition is to the effect that the order at Ext.P6 has been issued without granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent, placing reliance on Exhibit R1(h) notice dated 25.06.2021 issued to the petitioner herein, to contend that notice was issued to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. However, a perusal of the counter affidavit also shows that the petitioner had submitted an objection dated 27.07.2021, marked as Ext.R1(i) in the counter affidavit, seeking to explain the alleged incident. With reference to the explanation offered as above, when the order at Ext.P6 is read, this Court notices that the order and the directions contained therein have been issued only with reference to the report received in the matter as well as the action taken by the police authorities. There is no consideration of the contentions raised in the explanation admittedly stated to have been received by the 1^st respondent therein.

5. Similarly, the provisions of Rule 43(9) of the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules , 2012 would show a two-tier proceeding. After the formal enquiry in the matter also, the parties are required to be granted an opportunity of being heard under the aforesaid provisions. In the case at hand, the order at Ext.P6 has been issued without extending the opportunity of being heard as mandated under the provisions.

6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order at Ext.P6 requires to be set aside, directing fresh consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent herein.

7. Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, would add at this point that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) has also visited the premises of the petitioner and that there are no issues at present with the Balasramam, Adoor.

8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1^st respondent. Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed, setting aside Ext.P6 and directing fresh consideration after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and also taking into account the observations/findings of the CWC prepared subsequent to the incident.

Sd/-