Orissa High Court
Salagadia Happy And Holy Home vs State Of Odisha And Others on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P(C) No.33421 of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
Salagadia Happy and Holy Home .... Petitioner
Society
Dr. Simanchalla Rajnit, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Sailaja Nanda Das, Advocate
(Addl. Standing Counsel)
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No. 06.07.2022
05. 1. Dr. Ranjit, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
refers to order dated 22nd June, 2022 for record of that day's
proceeding.
2. 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
// 2 //
said children were reported in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor,
based on which the Collector refused to hand back the hostel to
petitioner.
3. 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.
4. Section 41 requires registration to be obtained in respect of a
child care institution. It appears from materials disclosed in the writ
// 3 //
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
// 4 //
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.
8. List on 27th July, 2022.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
