IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 20991 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARIA PALANA SOCIETY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ANTO THOMAS, S/O.K.I.THOMAS, KANICHAL HOUSE, VYNTHALA.P.O., PALAYAMPARAMB, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ORPHANAGE CONTROL BOARD, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAWAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE, MURINGOOR.P.O, CHALAKUDY, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR FR. GEORGE PANACKAL. 3. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20991/2006/Y APPENDIX EXT. P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 23.3.05. EXT. P2: COPY OF LETTER DT. 29.3.05 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO.451/2005 IN O.S. 155/05 DT.6.6.2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 10.4.2006 IN O.S.155/05 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.5.2005. EXT. P6: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.100/2005/SWD DT.18.7.2005. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P8: COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.308/06/SWD DT.17.7.2006. EXT. P9: COPY OF THE BROCHURE PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R2(A): COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO MAR VARKEY VITHAYATHIL DATED 25.11.2004. EXT. R2(B): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PROVINCIAL GENERAL DATED NIL. EXT. R2(C): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF ORPHANAGES DATED NIL. EXT. R2(D): COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO MAR EDAYANTHRATH DATED 30.11.2004. EXT. R2(E): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. R2(F): COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2002-04. EXT. R2(G): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 395/06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.20991 of 2006 (Y) ======================= Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a society which is running 3 Orphanages. There was a dispute regarding the right to occupy the property on which these orphanages were run, between the petitioner on the one hand and the 2nd respondent on the other. The 2nd respondent claims that the properties on which the orphanages and the properties on which the same are being run belonged to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent wanted to take control of the orphanages. The petitioner-society filed O.S. No.155/2005 before the Munsiff's Court, Chalakudy in which Ext.P4 judgment was passed, issuing an injunction against the 2nd respondent from trespassing into the properties in which the orphanages are being run, from forcefully evicting the petitioner and the inmates of the orphanages and the institution from the properties in question, from the interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the said properties by the petitioner and from W.P.(C) No.20991/2006/Y -2- making any hindrance/obstruction to the administration of the orphanages and institutions run by the petitioner. That injunction is still in force. While so, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent to the effect that the approvals obtained by the petitioner for running the orphanages under the Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 are invalid. The 1st respondent considered the said objection and passed Ext.P5 order whereby approval nos. 662, 663 and 904 granted to the petitioner under the Act has been cancelled and permission was granted to the 2nd respondent to transfer the inmates from the said orphanages to their institutions as per approval nos. 1170, 1171 and 1172. The petitioner's appeal before the Government was rejected by Ext.P8 order. Exts. P5 and P8 orders are under challenge before me. 2. By Ext.P5 order, the approval granted to the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has misrepresented before the 1st respondent that the petitioner had ownership of the properties in question. Now, it is agreed before me by the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent that W.P.(C) No.20991/2006/Y -3- subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the properties in which the orphanages are being run by the petitioner has been handed over to the 2nd respondent and the petitioner had shifted their 3 orphanages to another property and therefore, the 2nd respondent is no longer interested in the matter except to uphold that part of Ext.P5 order whereby the 2nd respondent has been permitted to continue the orphanages as per approval nos.1170, 1171 and 1172. 3. From Exts. P5 and P8, I find that the reason for the cancellation of petitioner's approval of the orphanages is that the petitioner misrepresented to the 1st respondent that, the orphanages were being run in the properties owned by them. However, the 1st respondent has not chosen to file a counter affidavit in this matter explaining where and how the misrepresentation occurred. Exts. P5 and P8 orders are also not clear about this aspect. In view of the Ext.P4 judgment of the Civil Court, I am not satisfied about the correctness of Exts. P5 and P8 orders in the absence of any material before me to prove that the petitioner had in fact misrepresented any thing before the 1st respondent. In any event, I am of opinion that the W.P.(C) No.20991/2006/Y -4- inmates of the orphanages should not be prejudiced by upholding the impugned orders. Exts. P5 and P8 orders have been issued on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, who cannot anymore be prejudiced in the matter because of subsequent events. Therefore, Exts. P5 and P8 orders are quashed to the extent it cancelled the approval nos. 662, 663 and 904 granted to the petitioner. I direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the orphanages in accordance with the said approvals in the new location where the orphanages have been shifted pursuant agreement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. I further make it clear that I have not interfered with that part of the Ext. P5 order whereby the approval nos. 1170, 1171 and 1172 granted in favour of the 2nd respondent has been upheld. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp