IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO. 27070 OF 2023

In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Sarvodaya Samiti, Koraput …. Petitioner

-Versus-

The Director, Odisha State Child

Protection Society (OSCPS),

W&CD Complex, Bhubaneswar &

Others …. Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Advocate,

with M/s A. Mukherji, S.D. Ray,

A. Mishra, S. Acharya, K. Banerjee, M. Wright, R.D.K. Dash, Advocates.

For Opp. Parties: Mr. U.C. Behura,

Addl. Government Advocate

[OP Nos.1 to 6]

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI with Mr. B.S.

Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel

[O.P. No.7]

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 19.11.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J “Every child born into this world brings a message that God is not yet discouraged of man” said Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941). Childhood is more than a chronological fact. It is a valuable time and stage of life, when a person is most susceptible to influence and vulnerable to psychological damage. This should prelude judgment in the making.

Petitioner, a registered Child Care Institution, is knocking at the doors of the writ Court for assailing the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by O.P. No.1 whereby its claim for Grant-in-Aid for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 has been negatived on the ground that the proposal for sanction and release of fund has not been approved by the Project Approval Board, i.e., O.P. No.7. 2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukherji appearing with the Advocate on Record for the Petitioner seeks to falter the decision on the following grounds:

(i) Petitioner-Institution has been running with the aid effective from 1982 to 2018 and therefore, abruptly that could not have been withheld/stopped, there being no reason or rhyme for the same. He draws attention of the Court to Chapter- V of „Vatsalya Scheme‟ in question wherein a procedure has been prescribed for withholding, suspending or discontinuing the aid.

(ii) Before the Co-ordinate Bench, the Government, having admitted the unsustainability of the impugned order, had undertaken to do the exercise de novo and accordingly the same having been done, vide order dated 06.07.2024, no relief has been yielded to the Petitioner. Mr. Mukherji adds that contents of each of the tabular columns in the order are faultsome and therefore, the same is liable to be struck down.

(iii) The foundational fault of the OP-State is in recommending the case of Petitioner to the Central Govt. as a new Institution in contradistinction to the existing Institution and therefore a whole lot of problem arose. At least, the Board ought to have sought for clarification from the State as to whether the Institution in question is an existing entity or a new one, since material was available on record to demonstrate that it is an existing Institution.

(iv) The Petitioner has a legitimate expectation by virtue of the long & consistent stand of the OPs in extending the aid under Central Government, State Government & the Institution concerned, respectively. Therefore, abrupt stopping of aid is offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He also submits that the State Government has produced the letter correspondence, pursuant to Courts order dated 16.01.2024; when perused the same reveals a host of errors that become demonstrable infirmities. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is warranted.

(v) Mr. Mukherji draws attention of the Court to the periodic reports filed by various authorities, including the District Collector, Additional District Collector & Additional District Judges in terms of the Policy Guidelines to the effect that the Institution has been running perfectly, and that it was in dire need of funds. In some of the reports, they have also mentioned about the resident