1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5402 OF 2009 Kathobadeo Shikshan Prasarak Mandal } Through its Chairman, } Shri Rohidas S/o Shankar Rathod } Age : Years, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Akrale, Tq & Dist. } Nandurbar. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary } Women and Children Development } Department, Mantralaya, } Mumbai . } 2. The Commissioner } Women and Children Development } Department, Maharashtra State, } Pune. } 3. The District Women & Children } Development Officer, Nandurbar } District : Nandurbar. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State . CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, J. & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17/03/2010 2 JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally. We have heard Mr. A.B.Girase, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.G. Patil, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The present petition questions Order dated 31/7/2009 passed by the Commissioner, Women and Children Development Department, Maharashtra State Pune, by virtue of which the final permission to start the Balak Ashram / Bal Sadan at Akrale, Taluka and District Nandurbar is refused. 3. The factual matrix of the case : The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner is running two secondary schools, one Ashram school and other schools in tribal areas. 4. The State Government vide Govt. Resolution dated 30/3/2007 and 5/2/2008 decided to provide Balak Ashram / Bal Sadan in every district as per the provisions of the Children Justice ( Children Care and Protection ) Act, 2006 and Rules framed thereunder. The State Government invited applications from the eligible Institutions in 3 that regard. The petitioner applied for the said permission. 5. The petitioner was granted preliminary permission by respondent no. 2 – Commissioner, Women and Children Development Department, Pune vide its letter dated 17/3/2008 ( EXH. D ). At the time of grant of preliminary permission, the respondent no. 3 – the District Women and Children Development Officer, Nandurbar made detailed inspection of the petitioner’s Institution and submitted enquiry report along with recommendation to the respondent no. 2. 6. The petitioner received letter dated 20/12/2008 from the District Women and Children Development Officer, Nandurbar thereby directing the petitioner to submit the necessary information. The petitioner also received show cause notice dated 22/5/2009, thereby asking the petitioner to show cause as to why proceeding should not be initiated to refuse final permission on account of non availability of the infrastructure as per the report received on inspection by the Dy. Commissioner, Women and Children Development Department, Pune . The petitioner vide its reply dated 22/6/2009, gave detailed reply contending that all the necessary infrastructure has been arranged for. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said report on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued, was never supplied to the petitioner / Institution. It contended that earlier the premises 4 which is taken on rental basis was possessing all the necessary infrastructure and the report to that effect was also made by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 2. It also contended that the new building is constructed with all the necessary infrastructure and the requirements. The petitioner has annexed the copies of the photographs of the said building. 8. The respondent – State in its affidavit in reply has contended that a special squad was appointed for the inspection and the inspection report dated 5/5/2009 indicates that there were no toilets, bath rooms, building and other essential facilities as required for the sanctioned strength under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder. 9. It is apparent that rival contentions are made by the parties regarding the status of the building and the infrastructure claimed by the petitioner. The respondents have also nowhere affirmed that the inspection report on the basis of which, the impugned order dated 31/7/2009 was passed by the respondent no. 2 was ever provided to the petitioner, nor it is the contention of the respondent that the said inspection was made in presence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that preliminary permission was granted on the basis of the report suggesting that necessary facilities are made available by the petitioner and that the copy of the subsequent 5 inspection report was never provided to the petitioner nor the inspection was made in presence of the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order was passed, it would be necessary to direct the respondents to inspect the said building in the presence of the petitioner and then to decide about the final permission to be granted. 10. In view of the aforesaid premise, the impugned order dated 31/7/2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 refusing the final permission to the petitioner to start Balak Ashram / Bal Sadan is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to inspect the building, infrastructure and facilities as claimed by the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner after giving due notice to the petitioner within the period of 15 days and thereafter to decide the aspect about the grant of the final permission to the petitioner to start the Balak Ashram / Bal Sadan at Akrale, Taluka and District Nandurbar. 11. The Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 5402.09 ( J )