AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Dr. Ranjit, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and refers to order dated 22nd June, 2022 for record of that day’s proceeding.
Mr. Das, learned advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and in answer to queries of Court recorded in said order dated 22nd June, 2022, relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Exploitation of Children in Orphanages, In Re reported in (2017) 7SCC 578, paragraphs 59, 64, 70 to 74 and 108. He submits, as pointed out and recorded in said order dated 22nd June, 2022, large number of children of both sexes studying in classes 3 and 4 are inmates in the premises. He reiterates, illegal activities in respect of said children were reported in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, based on which the Collector refused to hand back the hostel to petitioner.
The Supreme Court in Exploitation of Children in Orphanages (supra) declared, inter alia, even though child in need of care and protection is defined in section 2(14), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the definition does not specifically include some categories of children. Said Court went on to say, it would be unfortunate, if certain categories of children are left out of the definition, even though they need as much care and protection as categories of children specifically enlisted in the definition. The Court, by the judgment, gave several directions including that the definition of expression ‘child in need of care and protection’ under section 2(14) should not be interpreted as an exhaustive definition. The definition is illustrative and the benefits should be extended to all such children requiring State care and protection. Further direction was for the Governments to set up inspection committees for conducting regular inspection of child care institutions.
Section 41 requires registration to be obtained in respect of a child care institution. It appears from materials disclosed in the writ petition that petitioner has been referring to the premises as a hostel. Dr. Ranjit submits, inmates of the hostel include college going students. All those, whose parents and guardians find it convenient to avail of hostel services, have kept their children there. Records are maintained and his client can provide particulars of all the parents and guardians in respect of each and every inmate of the hostel.
On further query from Court Dr. Ranjit submits, impugned communication dated 2nd September, 2021 is the only writing issued by the administration. Mr. Das, does not dispute the submission.
In impugned communication the Collector has not called the premises a child care institute. The Fast Track Special Court by judgment dated 30th July, 2021 found that children, who are inmates of the centre, do not answer the descriptions or meaning given in section 2(14). There is no other category of children mentioned in the judgment. As aforesaid the writ petition discloses only impugned communication so there is no question of any other category being mentioned by the State.
Opposite party no.4 may, for the purpose of their allegation that some children are covered by the Act, inspect records of petitioner, upon notice requiring petitioner to furnish particulars of parents and guardians of such children. This must be done on a working day upon 48 hours prior notice. Said opposite party, upon discovery, will inform this Court by additional affidavit to be filed on adjourned date, upon advance copy served, the number of children, who according to the office are of a particular category as must be covered by the Act pursuant to Exploitation of Children in Orphanages (supra). Said opposite party is on notice that there is nothing on record to show that the premises is either an orphanage or a child care institute.
List on 27th July, 2022.
……………………….
.