The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 27070 OF 2023 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sarvodaya Samiti, Koraput …. Petitioner -Versus- The Director, Odisha State Child Protection Society (OSCPS), W&CD Complex, Bhubaneswar & Others Advocates appeared in this case: …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Advocate, with M/s A. Mukherji, S.D. Ray, A. Mishra, S. Acharya, K. Banerjee, M. Wright, R.D.K. Dash, Advocates. For Opp. Parties: Mr. U.C. Behura, Addl. Government Advocate [OP Nos.1 to 6] Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI with Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel [O.P. No.7] CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 19.11.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 22 PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J. “Every child born into this world brings a message that God is not yet discouraged of man” said Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941). Childhood is more than a chronological fact. It is a valuable time and stage of life, when a person is most susceptible to influence and vulnerable to psychological damage. This should prelude judgment in the making. Petitioner, a registered Child Care Institution, is knocking at the doors of the writ Court for assailing the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by O.P. No.1 whereby its claim for Grant-in-Aid for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 has been negatived on the ground that the proposal for sanction and release of fund has not been approved by the Project Approval Board, i.e., O.P. No.7. 2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukherji appearing with the Advocate on Record for the Petitioner seeks to falter the decision on the following grounds: (i) Petitioner-Institution has been running with the aid effective from 1982 to 2018 and therefore, abruptly that could not have been withheld/stopped, there being no reason or rhyme for the same. He draws attention of the Court to Chapter- V of „Vatsalya Scheme‟ in question wherein a procedure has Page 2 of 22 been prescribed for withholding, suspending or discontinuing the aid. (ii) Before the Co-ordinate Bench, the Government, having admitted the unsustainability of the impugned order, had undertaken to do the exercise de novo and accordingly the same having been done, vide order dated 06.07.2024, no relief has
Legal Reasoning
been yielded to the Petitioner. Mr. Mukherji adds that contents of each of the tabular columns in the order are faultsome and therefore, the same is liable to be struck down. (iii) The foundational fault of the OP-State is in recommending the case of Petitioner to the Central Govt. as a new Institution in contradistinction to the existing Institution and therefore a whole lot of problem arose. At least, the Board ought to have sought for clarification from the State as to whether the Institution in question is an existing entity or a new one, since material was available on record to demonstrate that it is an existing Institution. (iv) The Petitioner has a legitimate expectation by virtue of the long & consistent stand of the OPs in extending the aid under Page 3 of 22 the Scheme in question in the proportion of 60:30:10, i.e., Central Government, State Government & the Institution concerned, respectively. Therefore, abrupt stopping of aid is offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He also submits that the State Government has produced the letter correspondence, pursuant to Courts order dated 16.01.2024; when perused the same reveals a host of errors that become demonstrable infirmities. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is warranted. (v) Mr. Mukherji draws attention of the Court to the periodic reports filed by various authorities, including the District Collector, Additional District Collector & Additional District Judges in terms of the Policy Guidelines to the effect that the Institution has been running perfectly, and that it was in dire need of funds. In some of the reports, they have also mentioned about the resident children being happy. All these aspects have also not been looked into by the jurisdictional authorities while making the impugned orders. Page 4 of 22 3. After service of notice, Central Government and State Government, having entered appearance, their advocates have filed their counter affidavit by resisting the petition. (i) Learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the Central Government submits that since the Board did not recommend the case of Petitioner, his client‟s stand cannot be faltered. He also points out that a huge of sum of Rs.4.6 crore is lying with the State Government, and that it was specifically made clear that the same could be made use of without requiring any sanction, for the purpose for which the said funds have been placed at its hands. He also points out that to certain queries; the State did not come forward with the clarification or explanation and thus, the hands of his clients were tied. (ii) Learned AGA Mr. Behura appearing for the State and its officials resists the petition contending that the Grant-in-Aid is not a matter of justiciable right and therefore, petition is misconceived; disputed facts relating to the claim for money are involved in the petition and therefore, petitioner should be relegated to remedy of suit. The Petitioner, vide its letter dated Page 5 of 22 15.03.2018, had told that it was not willing to continue the Institution and therefore, arrangement should be made for rehabilitation of inmates. Accordingly, District Child Protection Officer, vide letter dated 04.03.2018, had agreed with the proposal and requested the Institution to retain the children for one more month and thereafter the accommodation, by way of rehabilitation, would be made. Because of above letter, no recommendation was made to the Central Government for allocation of the aid for the year 2018-19 & onwards. At no point of time, case of the Petitioner was treated as a new Institution. He also points out that the case of Petitioner was recommended for the year 2020-21 & onwards which the Central Government & OP No.7 had not favoured and therefore, no blame can be levied on State Government. So contending, he seeks dismissal
Decision
of the writ petition. In support of his contention, he relies Apex Court decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College1 and of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 9062 of 1992 (O&M) between 1 AIR 2021 SC 775 Page 6 of 22 S.R.P.A. Adarsh Bhartiya College, Pathankot v. The State of Punjab decided on 07.08.2014. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. Petitioner-Society has been registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it has been running a Child Care Institution with the aid from the State Government since 1982-83. Thereafter, the State Government promulgated revised Guidelines vide Resolution dated 04.03.2015. The petitioner-society came to be registered under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as provided under paragraph-ii in Chapter-II of the Scheme, in 2015. The Child Care Institution run by the petitioner-society has been maintaining the standards of care prescribed under notification dated 30.10.2014 and it follows the food safety guidelines issued by the Department from time to time. At no point of time, there is any complaint against this Institution, which had the permitted intake capacity of 50 children belonging to Page 7 of 22 downtrodden communities. Presently, it is having 25 inmates in the hostel. It is admitted at the Bar that the Central Government provides 60%, the State Government 30% and the Institution generates 10% of the funds required. It is also admitted that during a long period between 1982-83 & 2017-18, the aid has been provided to the petitioner-institution regularly and uninterruptedly. That itself creates a thick legitimate expectation, if not a justiciable right to have restoration of flow of funds by way of aid. Therefore, with no reason or rhyme, the flow of funds could not have been disrupted by the impugned orders. 4.2. The vehement contention of learned AGA Mr.Behura that the right to get the aid of the kind is not justiciable and that such a financial aid from the State is not a matter right at all, is a too broad a proposition to be accepted. Reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the petitioner is not before the Court for getting the State aid, ab inceptio. What he challenges is, the decision to disrupt the aid that was provided for about quarter century or so. Secondly, it is not the case of State Government that it has no funds at its disposal in favour of societies of the Page 8 of 22 kind. Learned panel counsel appearing for the Central Government draws attention of the Court to the minutes of Project Approval Board Meeting held on 12.11.2021 wherein paragraph-7reads as under:- to Rs.416.61 “The State informed that the State has an unspent lakhs as on balance amounting 01.04.2021, which may be revalidated for 2021-2022. PAB conveyed to the State that there is no need to lying with State revalidation of unspent balance Government during current FY 2021-2022, provided the unspent balance is being utilized for the purpose it was sanctioned during previous year.” Thirdly, the functioning of Institution & the state of its inmates have been periodically supervise by the jurisdictional District Collector, District Judge & Additional District Judge. Mr.Mukherjee took the Court through these reports, which are part of annexures wherein working of the Institution has been found satisfactory and that the children were very well being looked after. Fourthly, whatever procedural compliances were expected of the petitioner-society, the same could have been indicated with specificity and that has not been done. The action of the State and its instrumentalities has to be fair, just & Page 9 of 22 reasonable vide E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu2. Any arbitrary action in this regard runs the risk of invalidation in judicial review, which the constitutional Courts undertake. 4.3. The Vatsalya Scheme is broadly relatable to J.J. Act and the provisions of Articles 15(3) read with 39(e) of the Constitution of India. It is a matter of International Conventions too. The Apex Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India3, has observed as under:- 49. In a report submitted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, 40% of India’s children have been declared to be vulnerable or experiencing difficult circumstances. They are entitled to special protection under Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 24 of the Constitution. The concerns of child and the paradigm of child rights have been addressed suitably in various international conventions and standards on child protection including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), 1985, the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990, the Hague Convention on Inter Country Adoption,1993. India has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. The Convention inter alia prescribes standards to be adhered by all state parties in securing the best interest of the child. 50. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the millennium development goals cannot be secured unless child protection is an integral part of programmes, strategies and plans for their achievement. The newly constituted Ministry of Women and Child Development has rightly remarked that child protection is an essential part of the country’s strategy to place ‘Development of the child at the Centre of the 11th Plan’. The National Plan of