Writ Petition 26/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26/2011 Magas Janseva Samitee, Latur, through its Secretary Mr. Manohar s/o Ramchandra Badame, Age : 52 years, R/o Latur, Taluka and District Latur. .....Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra Ste, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Commissioner, Women and Child Development Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The District Women and Child Development Officer, Osmanabad District Osmanabad. .....Respondents. Mr. Patil N.P. Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 to 3. [D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.] Date : 18th March, 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per A.V. NIRGUDE J.) 1 Heard the submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the parties. By this short order, we propose to dispose of writ petition. 2 The petitioner Society is an educational society and a public trust. They run a Destitute Children Home (for short “children home”) at Tuljapur Dist. Osmanabad for intake capacity of 200 children, since 2006. It is common ground that the provisions of Writ Petition 26/2011 2 the juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are applicable to the matters relating to the “children home”. Recently in June, 2010 the Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Maharashtra State Pune, permitted the petitioner to increase their intake strength by 100 inmates. On 30/01/2009, the Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Maharashtra State, Pune (for short the Commissioner) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner society asking them to show cause as to why the recognition given to their “children home” should not be cancelled. Thereafter, on 23/08/2010 another notice was issued to the petitioner by Dy. Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai stating therein that since despite of the notice of the Commissioner dated 30/01/2009, the petitioner society had not removed the deficiencies found in the “children home”, the District Women and Child Development Officer, Osmanabad (for short the District Development Officer), the Commissioner and the State Advisory Board had recommended to the State Government that the recognition and permission given to the petitioner society for running “children home” should be cancelled and withdrawn. The notice further mentioned that as per the provisions of Maharashtra Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2002, the petitioners were given period of one month for removal of the deficiencies that were found in the “children home”. The notice further mentioned that in case the deficiencies were not removed within the prescribed time, the recognition and permission would be cancelled with effect from 23rd September, 2010. On 17/09/2010 the petitioner submitted a detail reply and stated that the defects Writ Petition 26/2011 3 mentioned in the Commissioner’s letter etc., were removed. In the mean time, on 22nd September, 2010 the District Development Officer, paid a visit to the site of the “children home” and inspected the same. He submitted his report to the department. Thereafter, the State of Maharashtra by their letter dated 13th December, 2010 informed to the Commissioner to communicate the decision of the Government cancelling recognition and permission given to the petitioner society for running the “children home”. As against this decision of the State of Maharashtra, present petition is filed. 3 On perusal of the affidavit as well as the annexures to it, following facts emerge. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been extensively amended in 2006 and the amendment are made effective from 22/08/2006. As per the provisions of Section 34, voluntary organizations who have established children’s home, are under obligation to get themselves registered under the Act. The relevant provisions of sub section (3) of Section 34 reads as under. Without prejudice to anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, all institutions, whether State Government run or those run by voluntary organizations for children in need of care and protection shall, within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006, be registered under this Act in such manner as may be prescribed.” Admittedly, the petitioner have not registered themselves under the said provisions. 4 On 30th December, 2008 the District Development Officer received certain complaints against the petitioner’s children Writ Petition 26/2011 4 home. He therefore, sent his officers for its inspection. Two officers inspected the children home on that day and found number of deficiencies in the children home. They found that the children home was uncleaned and devoid of sanitation. They also found that the inmates were not given sufficient food and were not given necessary facilities. The District Development Officer immediately sent a report of this, to the Commissioner on the very day. In this report, he mentioned that even earlier on 07/12/2008 several complaints were received and despite of several directions given orally as well as in writing to the management of the children home, they were not taking them seriously. On 02/01/2009 once again the District Development Officer sent his two officers (who had paid visit to the children home earlier) and found that since 30/12/2008, the society had not made any improvement in the condition that prevailed in the children home. On 03/01/2009, the petitioner submitted their explanation to the show cause notice given earlier. On the same day, the children home was visited once again by the District Development Officer and others. On that day, several serious deficiencies were found in the management of the children home. A joint inspection report was prepared on that day. Again, the District Development Officer sent a report about this, to the Commissioner vide his letter dated 05/01/2009. On 20/01/2009 the District Development Officer, once again sent reminder to the Commissioner. It seems, thereafter the Commissionerate, sent a show cause notice to the petitioner society. In response to this, the petitioner society submitted its reply vide their letter dated 20/02/2009. In this reply, they stated that all the discrepancies found earlier on 03/01/2009 at the children home were removed and they also assured that the Superintendent of the children home Writ Petition 26/2011 5 would pay attention to the management. On 27/02/2009 an Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad one again inspected the children home and tried to verify as to whether the deficiencies found earlier in the management of the children home were removed and to her surprise, many deficiencies were still noticed. In view of her report, the District development officer sent his yet another report again to the Commissioner. 5 The Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of Section 62 of the Act, held a meeting at Mumbai and having regard to the reports of the District Development Officer and the Commissioner recommended cancellation of recognition of the petitioner’s society. On 11/08/2010, Extension Officer and Medical Officer of Zilla Parishad too inspected the children home and found several shortcomings and discrepancies in the management of the home. They found that the children were not given proper food and clothes. They also reported that several children were found occupying home whose names were not mentioned in the attendance register. Thereafter, on 23/08/2010, the State of Maharashtra issued final show cause notice to the petitioner society. The Government further directed the District Development Officer to once again inspect the children home on 22/09/2010 and send his recommendation. On one hand, the petitioner society submitted a reply to the show cause notice and they tried to contend that all the discrepancies and shortcomings noticed earlier in the children home were eliminated. On one hand, the District Development Officer, as directed, paid another visit to the children home on 22/09/2010 and noticed several shortcomings and deficiencies in the children home. He submitted his report to the Writ Petition 26/2011 6 Government and pursuant to this, the final order dated 13/12/2010 was passed by the Government. In the affidavit filed by the respondents, they specifically mentioned that - “The petitioner has not fulfilled the short coming, but they submitted an incorrect report to the office of the deponent. Hereto annexed at Exhibit R-2 is the copy of said incorrect report submitted by the institution. It is submitted that the District Collector, Osmanabad has appointed a Squad to visit all existing Homes in the District and accordingly a Squad headed by Dr. Swami P.V. along with Extension Officer had visited the petitioner institution on 18/06/2010. During the visit number of lacunas were found such as balanced diet is not provided to the inmates, only one set of cloth was provided, inmates are not provided mattresses and even it was found that as per the available record, names of bogus students are maintained. However, the said children were found at their own houses since last 2 – 3 years but their names were included in the Attendance Register. Even the students who were absent on that date their names were shown in the Attendance Register. Copy of the report dated 11/08/2010 is annexed herewith and marked at Exh. R-3. It is not correct that all the facilities are made available in Balakashram. At the time of visit of District Women and Child Development Officer, Osmanabad there were some lacunas found in the said Balakashram. The same queries was communicated to the petitioner. But petitioner failed to comply within prescribed time limit. It is revealed from the inspection report of District Women and Child Development Officer, Osmanabad, that the institution has not provided facilities to the inmates such as building, clothing, bedding, maintenance services etc. Sufficient time was given to the petitioner to improve the above services, which are essential as per the rules and regulations. But the Institution has failed to do so.” 6 In view of these circumstances, we are not convinced that we should interfere in the impugned decision taken by the Writ Petition 26/2011 7 Government to cancel the recognition of the petitioner society. It is clear that before passing this order, several opportunities were given to the petitioner and despite of giving such opportunities, the Government found no satisfactory compliance from the petitioner society. We found that the impugned decision was taken after careful study and examination of the facts and circumstances and so the petition should fail. ORDER The petition stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] ts k/2011/march18/wp26.11/ok