The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circL mstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court rray be preased to direct the respondents to handover the chird namery Master r\ ravi Naga Venkata Dhruva who was kept in Sishu Vihar, state Home, Ameerpet Hyderabad to the petitioners forthwith by considering the Apprication dated t. -oB-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, H.No.8-3- 222,Vengal Rao Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

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

4. The Child Welfare Commiftee, Rep. by its Chairperson, Medchal-Malkajgiri 'district at Alwal.

5. The lntegrated Child Protection Services ICPS, Sishuvihar State Home, H.No.8-3-222, Vengal Rao Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri district ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 Adavi Vidyasagar, S/o. Subramanyeswara Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R:/o. H.No.7-22111,Flat No.302, Sri Ram Vihar Shankar nagar, Peerzadiguda, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district - 500098. Adavi Sowmya, W/o. Adavi Vidyasagar, Aged about 38 years, Occ. House Wife, Ri/o. H.No.7-22111, Flat No.302, Sd Ram Vihar Shankar nagar, Peezadiguda, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district - 500098. 2 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

3. The Central Adoption Resource Authority, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of lndia, West Block 8, Wing 2 first floor, Ramakrishnapuram, New Delhi- 'l 10066

4. The Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda, Medchal- Malkajgiri district. ...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. 3652712024 dated 27.01.2025 in the interest of justice and to pass such any other order or orders. Gounsel Counsel for the for the Petitioner : SRI C.RUTHWIK REDDY Respondents No.1toS: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & CHILD WELFARE DEPT. Counsel Counsel Counsel for the for the for the Respondents No.6 : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Respondents No.7 : GP FOR REVENUE Respondents No.8 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER -/7', IN THE HIGH COURT F.OR THE STATE OF TT)] ,ANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADH/\ /I DEVI WRIT PETITION NO. 36527 OF 202.1 DATED)3,L2.2025 Between: Adavi Vidyasagar and Another And The State Of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Women Development and Chitd Wclfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Seven Others. Petitioners ORDER ...Re spondents In this writ petition, the petitioners are seel: :rg a writ of mandamus to set aside the ordcr dated 09. '. .2024 and publrcation dated 1O.12.2024 by respondcnt No , as illegai, arbitrary and passed without considering the CARA application dated 27.O8.2024 and common order passed in W.l .No. I 193 of 2024 and consequently, to direct the respondents t r hand over the child Adavi Naga Venkata Dhruva to the petitr: ters zrnd to pass such othcr order or orders in the interest of ju; ice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the 1 rese nt writ petition are that petitioners herein are the husbar cl and wife 2 T D,J w.P.No. 36527 of 2024 and claim to be adoptive parents of the child by name Adavi Naga Venkata Dhruva. It is submitted that the petitioners were married on 22.08.2010 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs, but they did not have any children out of their wedlock and therefore, had approached various hospitals and Fertility Centers for children, but they did not succeed and when they started searching for a child through private channels, one Dr.Shobha Rani, had informed the petitioners that a new born baby boy was available for adoption and immediately, they have taken the child in adoption. They have stated that the baby boy was unclaimed and his biological parents were untraceable and that the petitioners have performed Datta Homam, Navagraha Japam, Agnisakshi Datta Sweekara Pooja as per Hindu Rites and Customs and named the child as Naga Venkata Dhruva in the presence of family membcrs and relatives. It is submitted that the petitioners have taken proper care of the child and have also got regular medical checkups and necessary vaccinations done by consulting a reputed children's specialist doctor. It is submitted that the petitioners have enrolled his birth with Ghatkesar Municipality and obtained Birth Certiltcate of the adoptive son and have also purchased gold ornaments and plot in his name and have celebraled his birthday on 17.O4.2O24 in 7 3 TMD'J W I No. 36s27 ol2024 a grand manner in the presence of close rele [ives. It is submitted that the child was taken away on 23.05..) )24 without following due procedure and without informing thr petitioners about the reasons for the same and therefore, th c petitioners filed W.P.No.1963 of 2024 questioning the act on of the respondents and that the same was allowed and t rereafter, a W.A.No.1 193 of 2024 and batch was fited and Le Division Bench of this Court, vide common order datcd 28. .)O24 had observed that the respondents have not followed tht proccdure prescribed in Sections 36, 37 and 38 of the Juvenile , ustice Act, 20 1 5 and had d irected the competent authority tr clccide the applications filed by the petitioners therein for ar r ption, but without considering the said representations/ appli ' rtions, the respondents have passed the order dated 09.12.2().+, holding that the children are 'iegally free for adoption'anrl < hallenging the same, the present writ pe tition has been flled

3. Learned counsel lor the petitioner hu:; adr.anced various arguments and while lrarned Government I leader for Women Development and Child Welfare has reliec upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submirte I that the child has been purchased by the petitioners and sin, c money is / I 4 TED,J W.P.No. 36527 of 2024 involved, it is the case of a child trafhcking. It is further submitted that identity of the mother is not known and the guidelines under the CARA have not been followed for taking the child in adoption and therefore, the petitioners' claim for the child cannot be entertained. Though detailed argume nts were advanced by both the parties and the matter was reserved for orders on 29.1O.2025, some of the petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of hling Special Leave Petitions in the case Dasari Anil Kumar and Another Vs. The Chitd Vlelfare Project Director and Othets, in Civil Appeal No. 10544 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025, Lhe Hon'l-rle Supreme Court has considered the interest of the children owing to the bonding between the adoptive parents and the respective children and has directed the respondent authorities to handover the custody of the children to the respective adoptive parents. The same was also brought to the notice of this Court. However, the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare submitted that a criminai case is pending against the petitioners he rein and that the CARA guidelines have not been follou'ed and therefore, this case should be considered independently of the decision of the Hontrle Supreme Court. \ 7 5 TVD,J fr-) No. 36527 oJ 2024

4. This Court finds that the Honble Sul remc Court has also observed that the order was passed by in'z rking Article 142 of tl,.e Constitution of India so as to do complr Le Justice in the matter and that this order would not come in th: wav of any other proceeding that has been initiated by tl-r,r responden[ authorities. Following the said judgment, another 1 etitioner by name G.Jayachandra Reddy had also approachec the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.SLP (C) Diary No.. '()O(t2 /2025 and vide orders dated lO.ll.2025, the Hon'ble Su1 remc Court has allowed the said appeals and directed that t.i r in fants in question shall be handed over to the appellants vvi[ rin a period of One (1) week from the date of the order i.e., fror 1O.11.2025. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have filed the s r d jr,rdgment before this Court and have sought disposal o[ the .rit petition in the light of the said judgment.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions a ed rnzrterial on record this Court observes that though there is a'r allegation of exchange of money for getting the custody of thc c rildren and subsequent adoption of the children, there are no ir legations of ill-treatment or abuse of the children by the adopti\1 parents. lt is also not in dispute that the adoptive parent have not 6 TAD'J w.P.No. 36527 of 2024 followed the CARA guidelines and as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1257 of 2024, they h,ave submitted the applications before CARA and the same are pending for consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered {*^.of the cases in the batch and has directed release of the children to the adoptive parents by observing as under in the case of the Dasari Anil Kumar and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others, in Civil Appeal No. 1O544 of 2025, dated 12.O8.2025: '3. The appellants assailed the ualiditg of the action of the police authorities in taking auoA the custody of the minor children from them as they claim to be the 'adoptiue porents" on the premise that it is utithout authoritg of lau.t. The detaits of the cases as nanated by the Diuision Bench of the High Courl in Wit Appeal Nos.1265 of 2O24, 1277 of 2O24, 1267 of 2O24, 1266 of 2024 ore ertracted os under: "In W.A. No.1265 of 2O24, it is the case of the respondents No.l and 2 tllot theA are the adoptiue porents of one minor gtrl child, nametg D. Maanuika, uho is aged about three gears. It is their case that respondents No.1 and 2 u.tere infonned through a common fiend that a nine dags old bobg girl is auailable for adoption. The aforesaid respondents therefore adopted the child on 3O.03.2024, ln accordonce uith the prouisior* of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenonce Act, 1956 (hereinafier referred to o's, "the 1956 Act"). In W.A.No.1277 of 202a, the respondent No.l claims that she has adopted a ttuo doAs oLd babg girl, namelg K Unla Maheshuai, from her biological parents on 15. 1 1 .2O21, as theg Luere not in a position to bnng up the child. In W.A.No.1267 of 2O24, the respondents No. I ctnd 2 assert they lea ntt through a common fiend that a 7 7 T D,J I P.No. 36527 ol 2024 tu.tentg dags old babg girl, namelg S.Rishika, is ltl t up for adoption. Therefore, the said respondents adt.S ted the said child on 26.O1.2O24 from h.er biological pr.r :,nts. In W.A.No. 1266 of 2024, the respondents No.l anut 2 clatm to be adopttue parents of a minor child, namely 5 Sre.sfa. tt is their case that theg adopted th.e aforesaid tt'o days oLd babg girl on 22.01.2O24 from the biological ptt, =nts."

4. In fact, there uLere petitioners, who t to be "adoptiue parents" in nine Writ Petitions b= leorned Sirtgle Judge of the High Court, uho .; declaration that action of the Commissioner c 1 Rachakonda ond Station House Officer, Medpa,[ Station in Jbrciblg and illegally taking tlrc a.Lsttx l. minor children from the appellants and han<lttt ouer to the Child Welfare Project Director and ir I C hiLd Prote ctio n Se ruices, Sishu uihar, Hgderab a t bosis of the First Information Report No.579 t dated 22.O5.2024 uas illegal, arbitrary and ui I Arttcles 14 and 2O of tLLe Constittttion of India. re said- bre the ught a Police, , Police , of the 1 them )grated csn the .2024 Lt{ue of

5. The learned single Judge bg his < order dated 23.O9.2O24 passed in W.P.No,; 19623, 21108, 21980, 21981, 17040, 22026, 221 23727 of 2024 allouted the Writ Petitions antl I r the prouisions of the Juuenile Justice (Care and Pn of Chilclren) Act, 2015 (for breuity, "the Act"), , appLg to the fact situation of the coses and fiut oction of the police authoities in taking the anstcxl. children in question from the appeLlonts h.erein u;\ to be adoptiue parents of the children in quest'r i egtal and u.tithout authoity of law. The learnc t Judge of the High Court granted libertg to the a1,y herein to adopt the procedure prescibed for ctn u of the cuslodg of the children with them bLt executing o.doption deeds or bg follouing ont procedure uthich would allou.t them to retain tlTe ( of the children foreuer. )mmon 22020, )9 and ld that tection 'td not Ler the ,of tlrc > claim N LUOS single =llants uotion nlidLg tstodg

6. Being aggrieued bg the said common ordtt datu:d 23.09.2024 passed bg the learned single Jut'1 e, the 8 TMI',J w.P.I,to. 36s27 oJ 2021 Child Welfure Project Director, Women, Children, Di.sabled And Senior Citizen ond Welfare Department, Medchol, Malkajgii District and Directorate of Women Deuelopment ond Child Welfare Department, represented by its Director, Yusufguda Main Road, Modhuranogar, Yusufguda, Hgderabad, had prefened the appeols. There u.tere also interuening application in the Writ Appeals. By tlrc impugned judgment, the Diuision Bench of the High Court for the Stote of Telangana disposed of the appeaLs bg setting aside the order of tLLe leanted single Judge and obserued in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under: "25. The chidren in question are tn the custodg uith the Committee since 22.05.2024. Therefore, presentlg in the obtaining foctual motrix of the case, u.te are not inclined to disturb the custodg of the children on occount of non compliance of Sections 36, 37 and 38 of 2O15 Act. It is stated before us that social inuestigation Lns been completed.

26. Howeuer, it is necessary to issue the follouing directions: (1) The Committee shall pass on order in tenns of Section 37 of the 2015 Act rtithin a period of tu-to u;eeks from the d.ate of receipt of copg of the order passed todag. (2) Some of the adoptiue parents haue filed an seeking adoption of the children. The competent authoity is directed to decide the application seeking adoption within a peiod of four u-teeks from the date oJ receipt of copA of order po.ssed todag. (3) Needless to state that the custodg of the children shall be subject to outcome of the a,foresaid direction-s . "

7. Hence, these appeals

8. We hnue heard leamed senior counsel for the appellants ond learned counsel for the respondents and leanted ASG at length. We hnue perused the mateial on record.

9. The details of the "Adoptiue parents" and the children are prouided bg learned senior counsel for the ,an/ - 9 TMD,J tV '.No. 35527 oJ 2024 appellants in a under: tabular form, u.thich b reprodt :ed as DISTRICT & STNTE OT RBS.IDEJVCE OF PERT,IES D$tncL Andhra Prodesh State NAME OF TEE BABY DATT: ADOI'1 ION OF DATE OF co.ivrlscA- TION D. Maanuika

30.43.: )24

22.05.2024 SL ,iro SIP lYo I SLP (C) 6322 of 202 NAME OCCWATION PAR?IES ANI) OI. Pi Dosan AniI kumar (OcanpLttion Assistant Engtneer Soeal4c Assrstanl, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) 12 BezaLuoda Sathga (Occupation Customer Associale, State Ddlk oJ lndid.) K. MaheshlDcln Uma 15 11 t )21

22.0-5.2024 S Rrshrho

26.01.2 24

22.A5.2024 B. Sresra

22.O1..)t 21

22.O5.2021 Nalgonda District, Telanga,Lo Slate MedchaL Malkajgin Dstict, Telangarn State Hgderabod, Telangana State 2 SLP (C) 4312 of 2025 3 SLP (C) 6426 of 2025 SLP(C) No.660 5of 202s Sole L'ettoner Kandala PadnLa (Oca-Lpatior VIIage Orga izaha Assrstaarl Husband Late Kandala Venkat ReddU (Possed auaA on 05.05.2023, afier Pl SluIIa MaLlesh (OcatpatLon SenLor Gr(tphtc Desqner, BRK NeLUsl P2 SoLtla Sruthi (Occupato Pharmacist m Apollo l] Santosh Pl (()clupatlot t Assrstnnt [+o]ect Manager. (iMMCO Li ited) P2- Dasai Jagadeesu\ti Deui (Occupatlon QualitJ Desigfter I, ELeclronic Arls (;onLes ItLdrc Put Ltd. ) -/ TXD,J V.P.No. 36527 ol 2024

10. Hauing heard lea nted senior coun-sel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents, tue fnd that ends of justice uould be serued in the instant cose bA dtrecting return of the aboue-mentioned children to the "adoptiue parents"- We also say so by inuoking our pou)ers under Article 142 of the Constitution in the peculiar facts of the case.

11. ThiS is in the tnterest of the children ou-,ing to the bonding betueen the "ad.optiue parents" and the respectiue children. This i"s bg follotuing the pinciple of the best interest of the child; principle of familA responsibility; pinciple of safetg, positiue meosures, pinciple of Institutionalization as a measure of last resort, pinciple of repatiation and restoration, u.thich are also enunciated os general principles in Section 3 of the Juuenile Justice (Care and. Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

12. For ease of reference, the aforesa[d pinciples are ertracted as under: "3. General pinciples to be foltowed in administration of Act.- The Central Gouernment, the State Gouernments, the Board, the Committee, or other agencies, as the ca.se mag be, while implementing the prouisions of thi.s Act shall be guided by the lollouing fundamental pinciples, namelg : (iu) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child. shnll be based on the primary consideration that theg are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to deuelop full potentiol. (u) Principle of family responsibilitg: The pimary responsibilitg of care, nurture and protection of the child sholl be that of the bioLogical familg or adoptiue or foster parents, as the cose mag be. (ui) Principle of safetg: All measures sholl be taken to ensure that the child k safe and is not subjected to anA hnny abuse or maltreatment while in contact LDith the care and protection sgstem, ond. thereafier. ": /r/ - 11 TED,J *.) No. 36s27 oJ 2024 (uii) Positiue measures: AII resources ar: mobilised in.cluding those of familg and commul promoting the utell being, facilitoting deueloprt identitg and prouid-ing an inclusiue and cr enuironntenl, to reduce Lrulnerabilities of children o need for inte'ruention under this Act- to be tv, for ;nt of abling td. the (rri) Principle of institutionalisation as a mert Last resort: A child slnlL be ploced in institutionol r a step of Lo-st resort afier making a reasonable inqtt (xiii) I'rinciple of repatriation and restorat tr. child in the .juuenile .justice sAstem sholL haue the t be re-united tuith his familg at the earliest and restored to the same socio economic and cuLtura' that he tuas in, before coming under the puruieu Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is nt't best interest. " :ure of 1re as .!). Duery ght to to be ;tatus tf this in his

13. In the- cirrtmstances, LUe dirt c respondent authorities to handouer the anstodg >f the children to the respectiue 'adoptiue parents" on o.- before 14.08.2O25 bg O5:OO PM.

11. Howeuer, as a safeguard and in t'L interest of the chiLdren, ue direct that the tV, Secretary of the State Legal Seruices Authoritg aru;1 Committee. Luithin uthose junsdiction the "ur. parents" reside to seek reports on the tuelfa -r progress of the cfuld from the respectiue "oc parents" on a quarterlg basis starting from Noru 2025 ontuards. The Member Secretary of the Stat' Seryrces Authoity and/ or the Member Secretary Distict Legal Seruices Committee uill also be at lilt, depute a Chtld Welfare Expert to inspect the homt the child onLl the "adoptiue parents'' reside. Tht. ensure the Luelfore and progress of tLrc children utl t been returned to the "adoptiue parents". ' best or the ruices tptiue 'tptitte mber, Legal tf the rtA to r-s fo hau<,- r/ L2 TMD,J w,P.No. 35527 of 2024

15. We again claifg that ute haue passed the aforesaid order in the best interest of the children concerned in the instant case o-s theg haue been u.ith their odoptiue parents for o few months upto three Aears in these cases.

16. A copg of the said report maA also be submitted to the jurisdictional Child Welfare Committee.

17. It is needless to obserue that the aforesaid order has been passed not onlg in the best interest of the children concerned, but al-so bg inuoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as fo do complete justice in the matter.

18. It is also needless to obserue that thi.s order would not come in the wag of ang other proceeding that has been initiated by the respondent(s)-authoities."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the case. Article 142 of the Constitution of India reads as under : "142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders a-s to discouery, etc- (1) The Supreme Court in the exercbe of its jurisdiction maA pass such decree or make such order os is necessary for doing complete justice in anA cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceoble throughout the territory of India in such manner o,s moA be prescibed bg or under ang laut mode bg ParLiament and, until proui.sion in that behalf i.s so made, in such manner as the President mag bg order3 prescibe. (2) Subject to the prouisions of ang la u.t made in this behalf bg Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the uhole of the teritory of India, haue all and euery pouer to make ang order for the purpose of 7 t3 TMD,J No. 35s27 o! 2024 u sealing the attendance of ang persory the disct ery or production of any docaments, or the inuestiga ion or puntshment of any contempt of itself. " 7 . Considering that the power of the Hor ' rle Supreme Court under ArLicle 742 is exclusive and extraordin rry, whether an order passed under Article 142 can be cons.dered as a precedent for similar cases, particulariy when the I .on'ble Apex Court has observed that this order would not come n the way of any other proccedings that has been initiated by tLt respondent authorities, the question that would arise for consic:ration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suprem,: Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another, reprlted in 1998 (4) SCC 409, has observed thus: "The plenary pouters of this court under Artt of the Constitution are inherent in the court c..r complementary to tlnse pou)ers uhich are spec confened on the court by uarious statutes though t limited bg those stotutes. These pou.ters alsc independent of the statutes utith a uieut to do ct justice betueen tlrc parties. These powers alsr, independent of the statutes Luith a uieuL to do ct justice bettueen the porties. These pouers are c tuide amplitude and are in the nature of supplert pol.uers. Thi-s power, erisls as a separate independent basis of jurisdiction, apart from the s\ It stands upon the foundotion, and the basis exercise mag be put on o different and perLrup,: u,tider footing, to preuent injustice in the pro<:t litigation ond to do complete justice between the ,) This plenary juisdiction rs, thzs, the residual sct t.e 142 d are ficallg re not nplete erists nplete " uery ,ntary tutes. br its ss o.,[ vties. rce of ./ r4 TND,J w.P.No. 36s27 ol 2024 pouer uhich thi-s Court mag draut upon os necessary wheneuer it is lsf and equitoble to do so and in partianlor to en-sure the obseruance of the due process oJ lanu, to do complete justice bettueen the parties. This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of pou-ter tuhich this court maA drou upon os necessary taheneuer it is just and equitoble to do so and in porticalar to en sure the obseruance of the due process of lou.t, to do complete lustice betu.teen the porties, while administeing justice according to law. Tlrcre is no doubt that it i-s an indispensable adjunct to alL other potuers and i.s free from the restraint of jurisdiction and operates as a ualuable ueapon in the hands of the court to preuent "clogging or obstrttction of the stream of justice". It, houeuer, needs to be remembered that the pouers confered on the court bg Article 142 betng anratiue in nature cannot be corlsttued as pou)ers uhich authoise the court to ignore the substantiue ights of a litigant whiLe dealing uith o cause pending before it. thts pouer cannot be used to "supplant" substantiue lauL applicable to the cd-se or cause under consideration of the court. Article 142, euen uith the uidth of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a neu.t edi.ftce uLrcre none existed eorlier, by ignoing express statutory prouisions dealing with a subject and therebg to achieue something indirectly tuhich cannot be ochieued d.irectly. " "No enactment mode bg Central or State Legisloture can limit or restrict the pou.ter of this Court under Article 142 of the constitution, the court must take into consideration the statutory prouisions regulating the matter in dispute. What uould be the need of "complete justice" in a cause or matter tuould depend upon the facts and circumstances of each cose and u.thile exerctsing tltnt pouer the courl utould take into consideration the express proukions of a substantiue statute- Once this Court has token seisin of o case, cause or matter, it has pou.ter to pass onA order or issue direction as mag be necessary to do complete justice in the matter. Thtb has been the 7 l5 q TMD,J No. 35s27 oJ 2024 consistent uiew of tltis Court os tuould appear Ji )m the decisions of this court in Sto.te of U.P. Vs. Poost, I, Anr. (1976 (3) SCR l0O5; Ganga Bishan & Ors. 7s. Jot Yarain (1986 (1) SCC 75; Naunit R. Komani & Ors- t/s. Jai Varain (1988 (4) SCC 387); B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. us. 5'ate of Mysore & Ors. (1986 13/ SCR 682): Special Refertt ce No. 1 of 1964, (supra), and Harbans Singh us. State tf IJ.P. Ors. "

8. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Srrl reme Court initially in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar (citec|. supral, has invoked Article 1,12 of the Constitution of India zrn I later in the case of Gudla Jayachandra Reddy and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others, in SLP (Cl) I o. 5758 I of 2025 has follou.ed the above decision and pirr sed orders invoking Article I42 of rhe Constitution of India. 'l rerefore, by \ \ implication, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dasari AniI Kumar (cited supra), is applicable tr the similar cases of batch onJy.

9. Therefore, this Court, lollowing the jud 3 nent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directs the respondent a j:horities to release the infants in these cases also to the concer-t:d adoptive parents herein within a period of one (1) week fronr the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the same cc editions as imposed by the Honble Supreme Court. Hower.er, except for these cases which were considered and disposed a; a batch of ) 16 T D,J W.".r{o. 36527 of 2021 cases by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision has also referred to the batch of these writ petitions ald has directed the release of children in the respective appeals, these decisions shall not be considered as precedents for any other case.

10. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To, 1 The Princioal Secretary, Women Development and Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad. SD/.MOMINA M ISTANT R R SECTION OFFICER Welfare Department,

2. The Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, H No'B-3- 222,Yengal Rao Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

3. The child welfare Project Director women, children, Disabled and senior Citizens Welfare Department, Medchal Malkajgiri District'

4. The chairperson, child Welfare committee, Medchal-Malkajgiri district at Alwal.

5. The lntegrated Child Protection Services ICPS, Sishuvihar State Home, - H.No.g-e"-222, Vengal Rao Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad' - 6.TheCentralAdoptionResourceAuthority,lVlinistryofWomenandChild Oevelopment, Gbvernment of lndia, Wedt Block 8, Wing 2 first floor' Ramakiishnapuram, New Delhi- '1 10066

7. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri district 8. The station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda, Medchal- Malkajgiri district.

9. One CC to SRI C.RUTHWIK REDDY, Advocate. IOPUCI - l0.TwoCCstoGPforWomenDevelopmentandChildWelfareDepartment, ff lgh bourt for the State of Telangaha at Hyderabad' [OUI

11.Two CD CoPies. BSK CC TODAY ...1 //. . - /.'{t . l/ ,' , ,/u \).. * Te i 4 trEc 2125 (r'1 v ;'. i- HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 ORDER WP.No.36527 o12024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $