Bombay High Court
Mrs. Poonam Chandrashekhar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 April, 2017
Bench: A.S. Oka
1 wp2091
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2091 OF 2015
Poonam Chandrashekhar Inamdar ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Siddhesh Pilankar i/b Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the
Petitioner
Ms Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to
3.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.K.MENON, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 19, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)
1 Earlier order passed in this petition makes it
clear that this petition will be disposed of finally
at the stage of admission.
2 The challenge in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is to the
notification dated 18th November 2014 issued by the
State Government. By the said notification, the
State Government decided to terminate the
appointment of the Chairperson of the Child Welfare
Committee of the Ahmednagar District and the
appointment of the petitioner and another Member of
the Child Welfare Committee of Satara District. In
the said notification, it was observed that an
enquiry was held by the State Advisory Board into
the conduct of the petitioner and that the State
2 wp2091
Advisory Board found the petitioner guilty of misuse
of powers.
2 There is also a challenge to the communication
dated 7th January 2015 issued to the petitioner by
which the Government Notification dated 18th
November 2014 was communicated to her.
3 The challenge in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is mainly on the
ground that the State Advisory Board has no
jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the allegations
levelled against the members of a Child Welfare
Committee. Reliance is placed on the Judgment and
Order dated 14th October 2014 delivered by a
Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the
case of Renuka Vishnu Ghule vs. State of Maharashtra
and others1. Another contention is that the order
of removal of the petitioner from the post of a
Member is in breach of the principles of natural
justice. The petitioner has invited the attention
of this Court to the minutes of the meeting of the
State Advisory Board of 5th, 6th and 12th September
2014. The contention of the petitioner is that
there was no proper enquiry held by any Authority
including the State Advisory Board. It is stated
that only on the basis of what transpired in the
said meeting that a decision was taken to cancel
the appointment of the petitioner.
3 wp2091
4 The learned AGP has placed on record a letter
dated 18th April 2017 addressed to her by the Deputy
Secretary of the Women and Child Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In the said letter,
it is stated that a draft notification for
cancellation of the impugned notification dated 18th
April 2014 is being placed before the Law and
Judiciary Department. If the same is approved, it
will be placed before the Hon'ble Minister for his
approval.
5 We have perused the Judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of
Renuka Ghule (supra). The Division Bench after
considering the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules,2007 framed by the Central Government came to
the conclusion that the State Advisory Board is not
entrusted with the power to conduct an enquiry into
the allegations levelled against the members of a
Child Welfare Committee and only the Selection
Committee constituted under section 91 of the said
Act is empowered to hold enquiry and to recommend
termination of appointment of the members of a Child
Welfare Committee.
6 We have carefully examined the provisions of
the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. We find
that no power is conferred either by the said Act or
the Rules framed thereunder on the State Advisory
Board to conduct an enquiry into the allegations
4 wp2091
levelled against the Members of a Child Welfare
Committee. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 92 of the said Rules
provides that the Selection Committee constituted in
accordance with Rule 91 has a power to hold an
enquiry into any complaint against a member of a
Child Welfare Committed and to recommend termination
of the appointment of the said Member.
7 In the present case, admittedly, no such
enquiry has been conducted by the Selection
Committee.
8 Neither the impugned notification nor the
impugned communication record that any opportunity
of being heard was granted to the Petitioner before
terminating her appointment.
9 Therefore, in our considered view, the
appointment of the petitioner could not have been
terminated without any enquiry being held by the
Selection Committee. The State Government has
committed an error by relying upon the
recommendations of the State Advisory Boad.
10 Accordingly, the petition must succeed. Hence,
we pass the following order:
(I) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a);
(II) We clarify that we have made no
adjudication on the allegations made against
the petitioner. We also clarify that this order
5 wp2091
will not prevent the Selection Committee from
holding an enquiry in accordance with Sub-Rule
2 of Rule 92 of the said Rules;
(III) All contentions of the petitioner in that
behalf are kept open;
(IV) All concerned to act upon an authenticated
copy of this Judgment and order.
(A.K.MENON,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)
