1. Puli Uppalaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci ( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly respondent No.4 and [i to permit and grant visitation to the petitioners herein to visit the baby boy nanr rly BHARGAV RAM and spend time with the baby boy at the premises where I e baby boy namely BHARGAV RAM is presently residing, in the presence of th 3 responsible staff of the respondent No. 4 and 5 herein as deputed for observatirr r by the respondent No. 4 and 5, pending disposal of the main writ petition. I.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to direct the respondents not to proceed to give the petiticr ers adoptive child BHARAGAV RAM to others, pending disposal of the main writ ,etition. |.A.NO:3 OF 2025 Between 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Child Welfare Committee, Rep by its Chairperson Alwal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

3. The Child Welfare Project Director, Women, Children, Disabled Senior Citizen Welfare, Department, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

4. The Directorate of Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Rep By its Director, Yosufguda Main Road Madhura Nagar, Yosufguda Hyderabad 500045.

5. The lntegrated Child Protection Services (ICPS), Sishuvihar, State Home, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 AND

1. Puli Uppalaiah, S/o. Puli Latchadi, Age 36 years, Occ ; Taddy Toper, R/o. Pedanemila Village, Nuthankal Mandal, Suryapet District, Telangana State.

2. Puli Prameela, Wo. Puli Uppalaiah, Age 34 years, Occ ; House wife, R/o. Pedanemila Village, Nuthankal Mandal, Suryapet District, Telangana State. .....RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS

3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, Commissionrate, Neredmet X Road, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

4. The Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, Medipaily. Rachakonda Commissionarate, (Medchal- Malkajgiri District).

5. The Central Adoption Resource Agency, West Block- 8, wing- 2, First Floor, Ramakrishnapuram, New Delhi- 1 10 066. .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in WP.No. 133512025 on 27 -1-25 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI VEERA BABU GANDU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 5: GP FOR WOMEN I rEV AND CHILD WELFARE Counsel forthe Respondent No.6 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : G.P FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.9 : SMT KAVITHA YADAV The Court made the following ORDER ry/ -/ /i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI UIRIT PETITION NO. 1335 OF 2025 DATEDZ1L2.2o25 Between: Puli Uppalaiah and Another And The State O[ Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Secrctariat, Hyderabad and tright Others. .... Petitioners ...Respondents ORDER In this writ petition, thc petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated O9.12.2024 and pubiication dated 1O. 12.2024 by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and passed '"vithout considering the common order passed in W.A.No.1257 of 2024, dated 28.11.2024 and consequently, to direct the respondents to hand over the child Bhargav Ram to the petitioners and to pass such other order or orders in thc interesl ofjusticc. -/ 2 TMD,J w.P.No. 133s oI 2O2s

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of r I e present writ petition are that petitioners herein are the hu s rand and u,ifc and it is srrbrrritted that they did not have ar r-1, r hildren out of their wedlock and therefore having come to k I ;,,v through a person that a college student got pregnant wi Lout marriage and has given birth to baby boy on 26.02.2(...2, they have approached the natural mother and have taken t te custody ol child from her. It is submitted that the mother ( f the child did not have sufhcient financial resourccs and rlso due to unmarried pregnancy, shc did not want io her ile ntity to be known and the refore, the petitioners havc takr:: r the child in adoption from her when the child was four clays rld and they have performed the Datta Homam as per Hindu Rrt tal and have taken care of the child and have namecl the chrl I as Bargav Ram. It is sultmitted that the relevant function s have bcen perlormed grandly in the presence of the eldc. and well_ wishers. It is submitted that the respondent No.8, police have taken away the chitd from the custody oi the pet t oners after registering FIR in Crime No.579/2O2a, on the filc c I Medipally Police Station ancl the petitioners were shocked r L rd sulfered with mental agony due to [he said incicient. Chltl :ngrng the ...taking away the custody of the child from thent, r_lr<: petitioners s"v/ ,/i 3 TMD,J w.P.t{o. 1335 of 2O2S have lrled W.P.No.23727 of 2024 and this Court allowed the same and aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 filed a W.A.No. 1257 of 2024 and the same was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 28. 12.2024 directing the competent authority to decide the applications of the petitioners seeking adoption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is submitted that the petitioners have also registered themsclvcs in Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) vide User Name is PrTtr24 155350 1 108, but without considering the said application, the respondents have declared the child to be 'legally lree for adoption' vide notilrcation dated 1O.I2.2O24 and therefore, this writ petition has been hled.

3. Learned counscl for lhe petitioner has advanced various arguments and while Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and .Child Welfare has relied upon the averments made in the counter afhdavit and submitted that the child has been purchased by the petitioners and since money is involved, it is the case of a child trafficking. It is further submitted that identity of the mother is not known and the guidelines under the CARA havc not been followed for taking the 4 TMD,J t.P.No. 1335 o! 2025 child in adoption and therefore, the petitioners' laim for the child cannot be entertained. Though detailed a r I rments were advanced by both the parties and the matter u,ir s reserved lor orders on 29.1O.2025, some of the petitioners hart approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of hling li recial Leave Petitions in the case Dasari Anil Kumar and Anot her Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others, ln Jivil Appeal No.10544 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025, Lhe Horr I le Supreme Court has consirlered the interest of the childrerr r w'ir.rg to the bonding betu.een the adoptive parents and tI rr respeclive children and has directed the respondent iru horities to handover the custody of the children to the rosp(:r t ve zrdoptive parents. The same was also brought to the noticc (,1 this Court However, the learned Government Pleader I-rr Women Devclopment and Child Welfare submitted that a cr rninal case IS pending against the petitioncrs herein and th: t thc CARA guidclines have not been followed and therelrrrc 1[ris case should be considered independently of [he decis on o[ the Hon'ble Supreme Court

4. This Court hnds that the Hon'ble Supr:me Court has also observed that the order was passed by invr I ing Article 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 1335 of 2025 142 of the Constitution of India so as to do complete justice in the matter and that this order would not come in the way of any other proceeding that has becn initiatcd by the respondent authorities. Following the said judgment, another petitioner by name G.Jayachandra Reddy had also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.SLP (C) Diary No.59O62 /2025 and vide orders dated lO.ll.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the said appeals and directed that the infants in question shall be handed over to the appellants within a period of One (1) week from the date of the ordcr i.e., from 1O.11.2025. Learned Counsel for the petitioners havc fited the said judgment before this Court and have sought disposal of the writ petition in the light of the said judgment.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record this Court observes that though there is an allegation of exchange of money for getting the custody oI the children and subsequent adoption of the children, there are no allegations of ill-treatment or abuse of the children by the adoptive parents. It is also not in dispute that the adoptive parents have not followed CARA guidelines and as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1257 of 2024, they lnave 7 e**r 6 T"D'J v.P.No. 133s oI 2o2s submitted the applications before CARA ancl t re same are pending consicleration. The Hon'ble Suprem,r Court has considered the some of the cases in the batch tur,l has dircctcd release of thc' children to the adoptive parents br cbscrving as under in the case of the Dasari Anil Kumar and l,nother Vs. The Child Welfare Project. Director and Otlu rs, in Civil Appeal No.10.544 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025: "3. T'he ctppellants assailed the ualiditg of the ,t tion oJ' the poliL'e authoities in taking a utag the custod'1 of lle minor chtldren from them as they cLaim to 'e' the "adoptiue paren.ts" on the premise that it is t 'ithout authoity of law. The details of the cases as nen,t ed l)L.t the Diuision Bench of the High CourT in Wit . ppeal Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2O2a, 1267 of 2024. t )(t6 of 2O24 arc extracted as under: "ln W.A. No.1265 of 2O24, it is the cast tf tlLe respondents No.l and 2 that theg are the oc )ptiue parents of orte minor girl child, namelg D. Maanuih r , who is aged about three Aeors. It is their cost thut respondents No. I and 2 u-tere infonned thrt:t .-1h tt common fiend that a nine dags old babg girl is at t ilabtet for adolltiort. The aforesaid respondents tlt e '<,Jore adopted the child on 3O.03.2024, in occordance tt i lt the prouisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenan:.' Act, 1956 (here,inafter referred to as, "the 1956 t\<:r'). trt W.A.No. 1277 of 2024, the respondent No.l clain: that she hos atlopted a dDo daAS old bobg girl, nan r r.q K. Unla Maheshwai, from her biological parent on 15- 1 1.2021, cLS theA uere rlot in a position to birul u .t the child. In W.A.No.1267 of 2O24, the respondents Nct. and 2 asserl thetl Leant through a common fiend tl ot n tuentA daAs old babg girl, nameLy S.Rlshika, is put t o for adoption.. Tlerefore, the said respondents adoptr. t Lhe said child on 26.01.2024 from her biological par<t,,;. In 7 7 TM4J W.P.No. 1335 of 2O2s W.A.No.1266 of 2024, tlLe respondents No.l and 2 clanm to be adoptiue parents of o minor child, nomely B.Sresta. It i.s their case thot they adopted the aforesoid tuo dags old baby girl on 22.01.2024 from the biological porents."

4. In fact, there uere petitioners, tuho are said to be "adoptiue parents" in nine Writ Pet[tions before the leomed Single Judge of the High Court, u-tho sought o declaration that action of the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda ond Station House Officer, Medpallg Police Stotion in forciblg ond illegallg taking the custodg of the minor children from the appellants and honding them ouer to the Child Wetfare Project Director and integrated Child Protection Seruices, Sishuuihor, Hgderabad on the basis oJ the First Information Report No.579 of 2024 dated 22.O5.2O24 utas illegal, arbitrary and uiolatiue of Articles 14 and 2O of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned single Judge by his common order dated 23.09.2O24 po-ssed in W.P.Nos.22O20, 19623, 21 108, 21980, 21981, 17040, 22026, 22429 and 23727 of 2O24 allowed tlrc Writ Petitions and held that the prouisions of the JuueniLe Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2O15 (for breuitg, "the Act"), did not applg to the Joct situation of the cases and further the action of the police authoities tn taking the c-ttstodg of the children in question from the appeltants herein u.tho claim to be adoptiue parents of the children in question tuas illegal and without authoritg of law. The leamed single Judge of the High Court granted libertg to the appellants herein to adopt the procedure prescribed for continuotion of the custodA of the children with them bg ualtdtg exeanting adoption deeds or by follouing any other procedure which tuould allow them to retain the crustodg of the children foreuer.

6. Being oggrieued bg the said common order dated 23.09.2024 passed bg the leamed single Judge, the Child Welfare Project Director, Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citiz,en and Welfare Department, Medchal, Malkajgiri District and Directorate of Women Deuelopment 8 TMD,J w.P.No. 1335 ol2o2s and Child Welfare Department, representetl bg tts Drector, Yusufguda Main Rood, Madh:.L.anagar, Yusufguda, Hgderabad, hnd prefened the appeo s. There tuere also interuening opplication in the Wit Apc ruls. Bg the impugned judgment, the Diuision Bench o.[ r rc High Court for the State of Telangana dtsposed of tl u, tppeals by settiryl astde the order of the Learned singLe,J t lge and obserued in paragraph.s 25 ond 26 as under: "25. The children in question are in ttLe :ustodA u-tith the Committee since 22.05.2024. 'l'l ereJore, presently in the obtaining factual matrix of the -: LSe, ute are not inclined to disturb the custodg of the ch'l lren on account of non complionce of Sections 36, 37 a,;7 38 of 2015 AcL It ls stated before us that social int,rs igat{on has been completed.

26. lToweuer, it is necessary to issue the -tc lowing directiot rs : (1) The Committee shall pass an order in. t nns of Section 37 of the 2015 Act utithin a peiod of trt t rueeks from the date oJ'receipt of copg of the order passe,l todotl. (2) Some of the adoptiue parents haue t'ed an seeking adoption of the children. The competent r,t thoity is directed to decide tle application seeking tL,'ctption utithin. a peiod of four ueeks from the date of rL:, eipt of copg ol lrtlsT passed todag. (3) Needless to state that the custody l the chiLdr<:n sha.lt be subject to outcome of the o 1c "r:sttid directions."

7. Hence, these appeals

8. We houe heard leamed senior coun t,l frtr the appeLlants ond leamed counsel for the resprr dent s and leanted ASG at length. We haue perused the nt ,.teial on record.

9. Thet details of the "Adoptiue parents" ctr 7 the chitdren are prouided by learned senior counse[ f.r the appelLan.t s irt a tabular form, uthich is reprodrt,:L d as under: sr. SlP NA.ME AND DISTRICT &, NAME OF DATE OF DATE .;] Y o lvo. OCC"PATION PARIIES Pl Dasari Anil ktmar (Occltpalion - Assistant Enqi\eer- ScJeltrfrc Ass.slanf, Btlabha Atomic Research Centre) P2- Bezanuada SathVa (Ocdtpation- Cuslomer Assoctate, State Bank oJ Indidl 9 TED,J W.P.No. 1335 o! 2025 Or. STTTE OT RESIDEIVCE Ol. PARTIES Prakasam Distict, Andhra Prddesh State TEE BABY AI'OPTTON CONTISCTt- TTON D. Maanaka

30.o3.2024 22 05 2024 l sLP (C) 6s22 of 2 SLP (C) 4342 of 2025 3 SLP (C) 6426 of 2025 I SLP(C) No.660 5nI 2025 K. [hna I ).1 1.2t)21 2) A5 2024 S. Ri.shtta

26.01.2021

22.0s )o21 B..Sreslrl

22.O1 2024 )) 05 2024 Nalgonda Dlstr,ct, Telangana State Medchal- Malkajgiri Distncl, Telangana Slate ItAderabad, Telangana Slate Sdle Pehlioner KandaLa Padma (Ocanpation - Village Orgonizatrcn Asslstaal./ Ilusband - Late Kandala Venkat Redd! (Passed audg on O5.O5.2O23, afrer the adoptrcn) Pl Stu1Lla Mallesh (Ocdeation - Seniot Oraphic Desig^er, BRR Neus) P2 SoLuIa SruthL (Ocalpalioft Plnnnacisl in Apolh) Sanrosh Project CMMCO Dosai Deu QualltA L Ans Pl B (Ocaeation Assislanl Manoger, Ltmited) P2 Jagadeesuari (Occllpotion Desigrer Electronic Games India Ltd..)

10. Hauing heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counseL for the respondents, ue find thot ends of justice uould be sen)ed in the instant case bg directing return of the aboue-mentioned chtldren to the "adoptiue porents". We olso sag so bg inuoking our 10 TIIID,J w.P.No. 133s ol 2o2S potDers under Article 142 of th.e Constitutitr in the pea iar facts of the case.

11. ?his is in the interest of the childrt n otuing to the bonding betLueen the " adoptiue parents' e.ntl the respectiue children. This is bg foLlou.ting the pri ,ciple of thc best interest of th,e child; principle oJ fomilA responslbilit11; pinciple of safety, positiue n1 'asures, pirtciple of Institutionolization as a measurc of last resort, pinciple of repotriation and restoration, t,-; tich are al-so enunciated os generat principles in Section ) of the Juuenile .Justice (Care and Protection of Childr tn) Act, 201 5.

12. For ease of reference, tlte u, crescLid pirtciples ctre extracted as under: "3. General pinctples to be follo t ed in administration of Act. The Centrol Gouernment, tL 2 State Gouernmcnts, the Board, tLrc Committee, t r other agencies, cts the case may be, uhile implem.et)t ng lhe prouisions of this Act shall be guided bg the J;. loLUULg fu ndame n ta I p i nc lple s, namely : (it,) Principle of best interest: All ac:isiorLs regarding the child shall be based on the ptmory consideration that theg are in the best interest of tL ? child and to help the child to deueLop full potential. (u) Principle of familg responsibilitg: The '; imory responsibilitll of core, nurture ond protection of (n , chitd shall be that of the biologicaL familg or adoptiue o Jbster parents, as lhe case maA be. (ui) Principle of safetg: All measures shall b: take,n to ensurc,that the child is safe and is not subjectet,' o anq harm, abuse or maltreatment u.thile in contact u,i h the care and protection sAstem, and thereafier. (uti) Positiue measures: All resources orr' \'t be,- mobilised iru:luding those of familg and commurLii l, for promotingl the we being, facilitating deuelopme of identity rtnd prouiding an inclusiue and etL, bling enuironm<:nt, to reduce trulnerabilities of children or C the need for iiteruention uid.er this Act. SiE r l1 TMD'J W-P.tlo. 1335 oJ 2025 (rri) Principle of institutionalisation as o measure oJ lctst resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort afier making a reasonoble inquiry. (xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Euery child in the juuenile justice sAstem shall hnue the right to be re-united utith his famiLg at the eorliest and to be restored to the same socio economic ond cultural status that he u.tas in, before coming under the puruieu-t of thi.s Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest. "

13. In the ciranmstonces, u)e direct the respondent-authoities to handouer the custodg of the children to the respectiue "odoptiue parents" on or before 14.08.2025 bg O5:00 PM. 14- Houeuer, as a safeguard and in the best interest of the chiLdren, ue direct that the Member Secretary of the State Legal Seruices Authoitg ond/ or the Member Secretary of the Distict Legal Seruices Committee, uithin u-those juri.sdiction the "adoptiue parents" reside to seek reports on the uelfare ond progress of the chiLd from the respectiue "adoptiue parents" on a quarterlg basis starting from Nouember, 2O25 orutards. The Member Secretary of the State Legal Seruices Authoritg and/ or the Member Secretary of the Dzst'ict Legal Seruices Committee will also be at libertg to depute a Child. Welfare Expert to inspect the home tuhere the cltiLd ond the "adoptiue parents" reside. This is to ensure the utelfare and progress of the chtldren who haue been returned to the "odoptiue parents".

15. We again clortfg ttnt we houe passed the aforesaid order in the best interest of the children conceffLed in the instant cose os theg haue been u.tith their adoptiue parents for a feut months upto three Aears in these cases.

16. A copy of the soid report maA also be submitted to the juisdictionat Child Wetfare Committee. L2 TMD.J w.P-No. 1335 of 2O2s

17. It is needless to obserue thot the t foresaid order has been passed not onlA in the best inter( st of the children cc,ncerned, but also bg inuoking Article I t2 of the CotLstitutton of India so as to do complete jusli< z in the matler.

18. It is rllso needless to obserue that il is order tuould not come in ttLe utag of ang other procee. ng that has bec:n initictted by the respondent(s) autltoritit: "

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upc 1 Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justir e to the case. Article I42 ol-the Constitution ol India reads as ur r er "112. Enforcement of decrees and oru ers of Suprem e: Courl and orders as to discouery, etc.- (1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercisLt of its jurisdiction maA pc.ss such decree or make such t der as is necessury for doing complete justtce in onA t.( use or matter pencling before it, and any decree so pr;,: sed or order so ntode shaLl be enforceable through c i the terntory of India in such manner as maA be presai rcd bg or under antl law made by Parliament and, until pr ,uision in that belrulf ts so mode, in such manner t s the Presiden.t rnoq bg order3 prescribe. (2) Subject to the pronsions of any lanu nt, ,.de in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court slt,,.ll, as respects the uhole of the territory of India, hau<, o'l and euery pouer to make ang order for the purl t se o-f secuing the ottendance of ang person, the disco,-t try or production of ang documents, or the inuestiga\ >n or punishment of ang contempt of itself. "

7. Considering that the power of the Hon'rt e Supreme Court under Article 142 is exclusive and extraorditrir y, whether an order passed under Article 142 can be cons r ered as a ;r-:*.i. 13 TAD,J w.P.No. ,335 of 2o2S precedent for similar cases, particularly when the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that this order would not come in the way of any other proceedings that has been initiated by the respondent authorities, the question that would arise for consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another, reported in l99B (4) SCC 4O9, has observed thus: "TLte plenory pouers of this court under Article 1 42 of the Con-stitution are lnherent in the court and ore complementary to those pouers which are specificallg confered on the court bg uarious statutes though are not limited bg those statutes. These potuers also eist independent of the stotutes with a uieu to do compLete justice betuLeen the parties. These pouLers also erisfs independent of the statutes uLith a uieu-t to do complete just[ce between the parties. These pouers are of uery tuide amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary pou)ers. This pou-ter, ersts as o seporate and independent basis of iurisdiction, apart from the stotutes. It stands upon the foundotion, and the bosis for its exercise mag be put on a different and perhaps euen uider footing, to preuent injustice in the process of Ittigation and to do complete justice betueen the parties. This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of pouter uhich this Court mag dra ut upon as necessary wheneuer lt is lsf ond eqitable to do so and in portia ar to ensure the obsentance of the due process of lalt), to do complete justice betueen the parties- This ptenary jurbdiction is, thus, the residual source of power tuhich this court maA dratu upon a.s necessary tuheneuer it isl.sf and equitable to do so and in partianlar to ensure tLte obseruance of the due process of laut, to do complete justice betu.teen the parTies, tuhiLe administeing justice accdfdffig to lanu. T'here is no doubt that it is an l4 TMD,J W.P.No. ,335 oJ 2025 indbpensable adjunct to all other polDers and i:: ree Jrom the restraint of juisdiction and operates as t. ,..'aluable weapon in the hands of the court to preuent "c\ gging or obstntctiot't r:f the stream of justice". It, houewl teeds to be rem.embered that the potDers conferred on th,z court ltg Article 142 being curatiue in nature cannot b(' :. ,rtstruted os pou)ers which authoise the court to igt ore the substantiue ights of a litigant uthile deoling uit,t a cause pending bcfore it. this pouter cannot be used to ' ; tpplant" substanliue law applicoble to the ca.se or caus: under consideration of tlrc court. Article 142, euen L,ith the width of its ampLitude, cannot be used to built. a neu.t edifi.ce uthere none eisted earlier, by ignoinc, ?xpress statuLory prouisions deaLing uith a subject antl t,t 'rebt1 to achieue somethinq indirectlg tuhich cannot be r:hteued directly." "No enoclment made by Centrol (.r State l,egtslature can limit or restrict the pouer of tLti. Court under Article 142 of the constitution, the court m,.t;t take into conside,ration the statutory prouisions regul(.t ng tlle matter in dispute. What would be the need of "rt mpktte justice" in ct cause or matter uould depend upon tL -: facts and circum-stances of each case and uLhtle exercisi ,,g thot power the ccsuri u.nuld take into consideration the t rpress prouisions o-f a substantiue stdtute. Once this C( L rl has token seisin of a case, cause or matter, it has p.; uer to pass onA order or issue dtrection os mag be nece:;: ary to do complete justice in the matter. This has br', n the consisten.t utew of this Court os u.tould oppear J)< nt th.e decisions of this court in State of U.P. Vs. Poosu , s Anr. (1976 (3) SCR 7OO5; Ganga Bishon & Ors. Us. Jcti i'arout (1986 (1) SCt) 75; Naunit R. Kamani & Ors. Vs. Jcu i araut (1988 (4) SCC 387); B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. us. :it 7te of Mysore & Ors. (1986 f3l SCR 682): Speciol Rekrett.e No. 1 of 1961, (s-.upra), and Harbans Singh us. Stat<: c " U.p. Ors." .- -*;aa:-z-r"- I t 15 TAD,J w.P.No. 1335 of 2O2s E. This Court finds that the Honble Supreme Court initially in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar (cited supral, has invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India and later in the case of Gudla Jayachandra Reddy and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others, in SLP (C) No. 57581 of 2025 has followed the above decision and passed orders invoking Article 142 of the Constiturion of India. Therefore, by implicat-ion, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar (cited supral , is applicable to the similar cases of batch only.

9. Therefore, this Court, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directs the respondent authorities to release the infants in these cases also to the concerned adoptive parents herein within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the same conditions as imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, except for these cases which u,ere considered and disposed as a batch of cases by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court and the Honble Supreme Court in its decision has also referred to the batch of these writ petitions and has directed the / 16 TMD,J v.P.No. 1335 of 2025 release of children in the respective appeals, tr:se decisions shall not be considered as precedents for any othel case

10. With these directions, the u,rit petitir r is allowed There shall be no order as to costs 1 1. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendi r I in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// I A/. MOMINA METAR STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER h r Welfare Department, To

1. The Principal Secretary, Women Development a Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Alwal, Mec r hal- lt/alkajgiri District, Telangana State.

3. The Child Welfare Pro.ject Director, Women, Children, [)r ;abled Senior Citizen Welfare, Department, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

4. The Director, Directorate of Women Developmentand C t ild Welfare Department, Yosufguda Main Road Madhura Nagar, Yc,t rfguda Hyderabad 500045.

5. The lntegrated Child Protection Services (ICPS), Sishuvi rar, State Home, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

6. The District Collector, Medchal- tvlalkajgiri District. 7. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, Commissiorr tte, Neredmet X Road, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

8. The Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, MeJ paily. Rachakonda Commissionarate, (Medchal- Malkajgiri District).

9. The Central Adoption Resource Agency, West Block- 8, r ,ing- 2, First Floor, Ramakrishnapuram, New Delhi-'1 10 066. 10 Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND Cl- ILD WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OtJ

11.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Starr of Telangana at -] Hyderabad. [OUT]

12.Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of - elangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

13. One CC to SRI VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate [OPU{) 14. One CC to SMT KAVITHA YADAV, Advocate (OPUC) 15.Two CD Copies SA PMK C.C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 t. sh;^a.\-\ (, { 0r[ 20i r \,"1 -t' ( ....t::tl .|...-.;'t () O l.,J_ \'.'/t '"s. *.\ t: ORDER WP.No.1335 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.