Jai Shriram Mahila Shaikshanik ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12116 Bom

                                       1                 WP / 9858 / 2021


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      926 WRIT PETITION NO.9858 OF 2021

                     JAI SHRIRAM MAHILA SHAIKSHANIK
                   BAHHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA SANCHALIT
                                  VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
                   ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                       ...
        Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Kasat h/f. Mr. Thombre S.S.
          AGP for the respondent - State : Mrs. M.A. Deshpande
                                       ...

                                CORAM      : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                             Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

                                DATE       : 24 NOVEMBER 2022

PC :

               Heard.

2. The petitioner-trust has been running a children's home

and was duly licensed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter the Act of 2000). It is now seeking

renewal of the licence post a new Act - Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter the Act of 2015) which

has replaced the old one and the rules framed thereunder.

3. After hearing both sides, it transpires that in several group

of matters of similar nature (Mother Teresa Balakashram Vs. The

State of Maharashtra and others i.e. writ petition no. 7821 of 2021

with connected writ petitions; decision dated 08-09-2022), the

2 WP / 9858 / 2021

respondent-authority has been directed to consider the applications of

such similarly placed petitioners to be filed for renewal of licence under

the Act of 2015 afresh. It was also directed that if the authorities find

some deficiencies, an opportunity would be extended to get those

rectified / complied with.

4. In view of such state-of-affairs, we allow the writ petition.

The impugned communication is quashed and set aside.

5. Committee competent to take decision on the respondents

proposal shall now take a decision afresh on the same in the light of

the observations made in the judgment in the matter of Mother Teresa

Balakashram Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra), as

early as possible. It is made clear that if the authority finds some

deficiencies, it should call upon the petitioner and give an opportunity

to rectify it.

6. If the concerned - Committee does not trace out the

petitioner's application, the petitioner shall submit a fresh application

within four weeks from today and the Committee shall decide it within

16 weeks thereafter.

       [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE ]                         [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
               JUDGE                                     JUDGE

arp/