AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
The grievance of the present writ petitioners is that they applied and got registration regarding adoption of a child and got to see a child named
“Gopal†for the purpose of adoption. The process continued up to the stage of Home Study and subsequently by a resolution taken by the adoption
agency, the minutes of which were e-mailed to the petitioners, it was disclosed that the application of the petitioners for adoption of the child was
rejected since the proofs of address given by the petitioners, being the Aadhaar Card and Voters Identity Card of the petitioner no. 1, did not match
with the current address of the petitioners as given in their application. Although a certificate was given by a doctor of the institution, where the
petitioner no.1 serves as a medical practitioner, regarding such address proof, the said address proof was not accepted by the authorities. A second
reason for refusal was stated to be that the Home Visit Report filed in respect of the petitioners was not satisfactory and the same was rejected by
the adoption agency.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was also found from the minutes, communicated later to the petitioners, that the petitioners
having attempted to bribe the adoption agency, which was also one of the grounds for rejection of the petitioners’ application in such meeting,
although the said reason was not communicated to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the adoption agency submits, by placing reliance on Regulation 59 of the Adoption Regulations, 2017, which governs
the field, that the petitioners had to appeal against the refusal of the petitioners’ application before the appropriate appellate authority within seven
days from the decision, which was not done by the petitioners.
Moreover, Regulation 10(12) of the same Regulations stipulates that in case the Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) do not accept the reserved
child or the Adoption Committee does not find the Prospective Adoptive Parents suitable, then the Prospective Adoptive Parents shall be relegated to
the bottom of the seniority list, as on that date, and may avail of fresh chance when the seniority becomes due and the same procedure shall be
followed in the subsequent chances.
Learned counsel for the adoption agency further submits that although the agency does not insist on the allegation of bribe and the same was not
communicated to the petitioners by e-mail, the other two grounds for refusal were valid in the eye of law and well within the jurisdiction of the
adoptive agency.
It is further submitted that the child-in-question has subsequently been given in foster care of other PAPs and, as such, it would be cruel to interfere in
the matter at this juncture.
Learned counsel appearing for the CARA, although takes a neutral stand, submits that for humanitarian reasons the subsequent foster care given to
other PAPs ought not be disturbed by allowing the writ petition in any event, since the said couple, under whose foster care the child has been given
now, must have developed an intimacy with the child.
Upon considering the pleadings and all affidavits on record as well as the relevant Regulations, it appears that the adoption agency, being respondent
no.6, had full authority under the law to decide on the application for adoption, after the Home Study Report was filed.
Although the Home Study Report itself does not evince any convincing cause for rejection of the same, nor any proof, even prima facie, of bribe being
offered by the petitioners is on record, the third ground of rejection, which was that the petitioners had failed to submit appropriate documents as
regards their current place of residence in consonance with their address as given in the application for online registration, holds true. It is seen that
not only the addresses of the Aadhaar Card and the Voter Identity Card do not match, those documents do not corroborate the address of the
petitioners as given in the application for registration as well.
That apart, the purported certificate given by a colleague of the petitioner no.1 was not a valid document as recognized under the CARA Rules as
proof of residence. As such, the respondent no.6 acted well within its jurisdiction to reject the application on a valid ground.
In view of the petitioners having not taken any recourse under Regulation 59 of the 2017 Regulations by challenging the said order in appeal till date,
the petitioners cannot be permitted to get a relief indirectly, which they could not obtain directly, by taking out this writ petition.
In any event, apart from the aforesaid reasons, a humanitarian aspect is also involved here, since the child-in-question was never handed over
physically to the petitioners whereas it has been given under the foster care of another couple for some time now and it is natural that the said couple
has developed a bonding with the child in the meantime. Hence, the petitioners had to come on a much higher footing than the grounds taken in the
present writ petition to have the order of rejection of their application cancelled, consequentially snatching away the child from the present foster
parents.
In such view of the matter, W.P. No.23561(W) of 2019 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.