Orissa High Court
Sarvodaya Samiti vs The Director on 19 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 27070 OF 2023
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Sarvodaya Samiti, Koraput .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Director, Odisha State Child
Protection Society (OSCPS),
W&CD Complex, Bhubaneswar &
Others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Advocate,
with M/s A. Mukherji, S.D. Ray,
A. Mishra, S. Acharya, K. Banerjee,
M. Wright, R.D.K. Dash, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties: Mr. U.C. Behura,
Addl. Government Advocate
[OP Nos.1 to 6]
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI with Mr. B.S.
Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel
[O.P. No.7]
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 19.11.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
"Every child born into this world brings a
message that God is not yet discouraged of
man" said Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941).
Childhood is more than a chronological fact.
It is a valuable time and stage of life, when a
person is most susceptible to influence and
vulnerable to psychological damage. This
should prelude judgment in the making.
Petitioner, a registered Child Care Institution, is knocking at the
doors of the writ Court for assailing the order dated 07.08.2023
passed by O.P. No.1 whereby its claim for Grant-in-Aid for the
years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 has been negatived on the
ground that the proposal for sanction and release of fund has
not been approved by the Project Approval Board, i.e., O.P. No.7.
2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukherji appearing with the
Advocate on Record for the Petitioner seeks to falter the decision
on the following grounds:
(i) Petitioner-Institution has been running with the aid
effective from 1982 to 2018 and therefore, abruptly that could
not have been withheld/stopped, there being no reason or
rhyme for the same. He draws attention of the Court to Chapter-
V of „Vatsalya Scheme‟ in question wherein a procedure has
been prescribed for withholding, suspending or discontinuing
the aid.
(ii) Before the Co-ordinate Bench, the Government, having
admitted the unsustainability of the impugned order, had
undertaken to do the exercise de novo and accordingly the same
having been done, vide order dated 06.07.2024, no relief has
been yielded to the Petitioner. Mr. Mukherji adds that contents
of each of the tabular columns in the order are faultsome and
therefore, the same is liable to be struck down.
(iii) The foundational fault of the OP-State is in recommending
the case of Petitioner to the Central Govt. as a new Institution in
contradistinction to the existing Institution and therefore a
whole lot of problem arose. At least, the Board ought to have
sought for clarification from the State as to whether the
Institution in question is an existing entity or a new one, since
material was available on record to demonstrate that it is an
existing Institution.
(iv) The Petitioner has a legitimate expectation by virtue of the
long & consistent stand of the OPs in extending the aid under
the Scheme in question in the proportion of 60:30:10, i.e.,
Central Government, State Government & the Institution
concerned, respectively. Therefore, abrupt stopping of aid is
offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He also
submits that the State Government has produced the letter
correspondence, pursuant to Courts order dated 16.01.2024;
when perused the same reveals a host of errors that become
demonstrable infirmities. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is
warranted.
(v) Mr. Mukherji draws attention of the Court to the periodic
reports filed by various authorities, including the District
Collector, Additional District Collector & Additional District
Judges in terms of the Policy Guidelines to the effect that the
Institution has been running perfectly, and that it was in dire
need of funds. In some of the reports, they have also mentioned
about the resident children being happy. All these aspects have
also not been looked into by the jurisdictional authorities while
making the impugned orders.
3. After service of notice, Central Government and State
Government, having entered appearance, their advocates have
filed their counter affidavit by resisting the petition.
(i) Learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the Central
Government submits that since the Board did not recommend
the case of Petitioner, his client‟s stand cannot be faltered. He
also points out that a huge of sum of Rs.4.6 crore is lying with
the State Government, and that it was specifically made clear
that the same could be made use of without requiring any
sanction, for the purpose for which the said funds have been
placed at its hands. He also points out that to certain queries;
the State did not come forward with the clarification or
explanation and thus, the hands of his clients were tied.
(ii) Learned AGA Mr. Behura appearing for the State and its
officials resists the petition contending that the Grant-in-Aid is
not a matter of justiciable right and therefore, petition is
misconceived; disputed facts relating to the claim for money are
involved in the petition and therefore, petitioner should be
relegated to remedy of suit. The Petitioner, vide its letter dated
15.03.2018, had told that it was not willing to continue the
Institution and therefore, arrangement should be made for
rehabilitation of inmates. Accordingly, District Child Protection
Officer, vide letter dated 04.03.2018, had agreed with the
proposal and requested the Institution to retain the children for
one more month and thereafter the accommodation, by way of
rehabilitation, would be made. Because of above letter, no
recommendation was made to the Central Government for
allocation of the aid for the year 2018-19 & onwards. At no point
of time, case of the Petitioner was treated as a new Institution.
He also points out that the case of Petitioner was recommended
for the year 2020-21 & onwards which the Central Government
& OP No.7 had not favoured and therefore, no blame can be
levied on State Government. So contending, he seeks dismissal
of the writ petition. In support of his contention, he relies Apex
Court decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal
Abhay Nandan Inter College1 and of High Court of Punjab &
Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 9062 of 1992 (O&M) between
AIR 2021 SC 775
S.R.P.A. Adarsh Bhartiya College, Pathankot v. The State
of Punjab decided on 07.08.2014.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. Petitioner-Society has been registered under the provisions
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it has been running a
Child Care Institution with the aid from the State Government
since 1982-83. Thereafter, the State Government promulgated
revised Guidelines vide Resolution dated 04.03.2015. The
petitioner-society came to be registered under Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as provided under
paragraph-ii in Chapter-II of the Scheme, in 2015. The Child
Care Institution run by the petitioner-society has been
maintaining the standards of care prescribed under notification
dated 30.10.2014 and it follows the food safety guidelines issued
by the Department from time to time. At no point of time, there
is any complaint against this Institution, which had the
permitted intake capacity of 50 children belonging to
downtrodden communities. Presently, it is having 25 inmates in
the hostel. It is admitted at the Bar that the Central Government
provides 60%, the State Government 30% and the Institution
generates 10% of the funds required. It is also admitted that
during a long period between 1982-83 & 2017-18, the aid has
been provided to the petitioner-institution regularly and
uninterruptedly. That itself creates a thick legitimate
expectation, if not a justiciable right to have restoration of flow
of funds by way of aid. Therefore, with no reason or rhyme, the
flow of funds could not have been disrupted by the impugned
orders.
4.2. The vehement contention of learned AGA Mr.Behura that
the right to get the aid of the kind is not justiciable and that
such a financial aid from the State is not a matter right at all, is
a too broad a proposition to be accepted. Reasons for this are
not far to seek: Firstly, the petitioner is not before the Court for
getting the State aid, ab inceptio. What he challenges is, the
decision to disrupt the aid that was provided for about quarter
century or so. Secondly, it is not the case of State Government
that it has no funds at its disposal in favour of societies of the
kind. Learned panel counsel appearing for the Central
Government draws attention of the Court to the minutes of
Project Approval Board Meeting held on 12.11.2021 wherein
paragraph-7reads as under:-
"The State informed that the State has an unspent
balance amounting to Rs.416.61 lakhs as on
01.04.2021, which may be revalidated for 2021-2022.
PAB conveyed to the State that there is no need to
revalidation of unspent balance lying with State
Government during current FY 2021-2022, provided the
unspent balance is being utilized for the purpose it was
sanctioned during previous year."
Thirdly, the functioning of Institution & the state of its inmates
have been periodically supervise by the jurisdictional District
Collector, District Judge & Additional District Judge.
Mr.Mukherjee took the Court through these reports, which are
part of annexures wherein working of the Institution has been
found satisfactory and that the children were very well being
looked after. Fourthly, whatever procedural compliances were
expected of the petitioner-society, the same could have been
indicated with specificity and that has not been done. The action
of the State and its instrumentalities has to be fair, just &
reasonable vide E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu2. Any
arbitrary action in this regard runs the risk of invalidation in
judicial review, which the constitutional Courts undertake.
4.3. The Vatsalya Scheme is broadly relatable to J.J. Act and
the provisions of Articles 15(3) read with 39(e) of the
Constitution of India. It is a matter of International Conventions
too. The Apex Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of
India3, has observed as under:-
49. In a report submitted by the Ministry of Women and Child
Development, 40% of India's children have been declared to be
vulnerable or experiencing difficult circumstances. They are
entitled to special protection under Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23
and 24 of the Constitution. The concerns of child and the
paradigm of child rights have been addressed suitably in various
international conventions and standards on child protection
including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
1989, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of
Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), 1985, the UN Rules for the
Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990, the Hague
Convention on Inter Country Adoption,1993. India has ratified
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. The
Convention inter alia prescribes standards to be adhered by all
state parties in securing the best interest of the child.
50. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the millennium
development goals cannot be secured unless child protection is
an integral part of programmes, strategies and plans for their
achievement. The newly constituted Ministry of Women and
Child Development has rightly remarked that child protection is
an essential part of the country's strategy to place `Development
of the child at the Centre of the 11th Plan'. The National Plan of
AIR 1974 SC 555
AIR 2011 SC 3361
Action for Children articulates a rights agenda for the
development of children.
51. Learned Solicitor General further submitted that the existing
child protection mechanisms have to be first noticed. The delivery
points however need to be strengthened. To review the delivery
of these programmes, there must be nodal agencies. Points of
responsibility have to be identified and strengthened. The
programme for juvenile justice is to enable children in need of
care and protection and those in conflict with law to be secured.
The central governments provide financial assistance to the state
governments/UT administrations for establishment and
maintenance of various homes, salary of staff, food, and clothing
for children in need of care and protection of juveniles in conflict
with law. Financial assistance is based on proposals submitted
by States on a 50:50 cost sharing basis."
4.4. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
1990,4 provides for various measures, which the State parties
have to take legislatively or otherwise. Article 24 of the said
Convention injuncts that State Parties shall pursue full
implementation of rights of the children in general and take
appropriate measures in particular to diminish infant & child
mortality, to ensure necessary medical assistance & health care
to all children; to combat disease & malnutrition through the
provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water.
Article 51 of the Constitution directs that the State shall
endeavor to inter alia, foster respect for international law and
treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one
G.A. Resolution 44/25.
another. Relying upon the said Article, Sikri C.J. in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala5 observed: ".... It
seems to me that, in view of Article 51 of the directive principles,
this Court must interpret language of the Constitution, if not
intractable, which is after all a municipal law, in the light of the
United Nations Charter and the solemn declaration subscribed
to by India." Therefore, it cannot be gainfully argued that the
State aid under the scheme in question is not justiciable, more
particularly when the paucity of funds is not an issue. All this
was not a subject matter of consideration in Principal Abhay
Nandan Inter College or S.R.P.A. Adarsh supra. Added,
Grant-in-Aid to an educational institution which ordinarily is
provided from the State funds is one thing and contributory
financial aid under important child rights protection schemes, is
another, although they are not poles asunder. The decisions
cited relate to the educational institutions and not to the child
care institutions of the kind and therefore, would not come to
the rescue of State. It is well settled that a decision is an
authority for the proposition that it actually lays down in a given
(1973) 4 SCC 225
fact matrix, and not for all that which logically follows from what
has been so laid down, said Lord Halsbury in Quinn v.
Letham6.
4.5. Mr. Behura submits that the problem began because of
petitioner‟s letter dated 15.03.2018 wherein it expressed
unwillingness to run the Institution in question. Let me examine
the inner voice of this letter that was addressed to the Director,
OSCPS, Women & Child Development Department.
(i) The letter has the following text:
"Sub: Request to shift the children from our CCI at
Koraput & Burja Not willing to continue the programme from
1st April, 2018.
Respected Sir,
With reference to the subject mentioned above, I would like to
inform you that the Sarvodaya Samiti has running
Orphanage for 50 Children since 1981 at Koraput and Burja
with the support from Women & Child Development, Govt. of
Odisha but due to the following reasons we are not
interested to continue the programme from 1st April, 2018.
1) We are not getting any kind of support from the DCPU &
SPMU (OSCPS) for smooth running of the programme and for
all round development of the Children staying in out Homes
as designed in the Scheme.
2) The funds provided for food per child is Rs.46/- per day
which is not sufficient for providing food to the children (age
[19O1] UKHL 2.
group 10-18 years) 5 times a day as per the menu provided
by OSCPS.
3) The 10% contribution of the total programme including
the salaries of the staff is quite high for our Organization and
will not be able to contribute such amount for the programme.
4) The Grant-in-Aid is not released in time, earlier it was
released quarterly basis by the department of women & child
development before formation of OSCPS, till now we have not
received the salaries of staff and other funds even we are at
the end of the year (March).
We therefore, request your to kindly give necessary
instruction to the DCPO, Koraput to shift the 50 Children from
our CCI at Koraput and Burja to other homes or take
appropriate steps on or before 31st March, 2018, so that we
will not continue from the next financial year 1st April, 2018
for which we shall thankful to you.
...."
The District Child Protection Officer, vide reply dated
03.04.2018, said as under:
"Sub: Regarding shifting rehabilitation of children of
SAVODAYA Samit, Koraput.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I am inform
you that it is not possible in our part to rehabilitate 50 nos of
children within this short time period. Now we are trying to
rehabilitate those children ins some TRW Schools and other
Institution. But it will take some time.
Therefore, I request you to keep those children for this
month so that we will be able to rehabilitate them properly."
(ii) The submission of Mr. Behura that the above letter of the
petitioner created the difficulty, is bit difficult to countenance for
more than one reason: The said letter although had expressed
unwillingness to continue the Institution, that was not end of
matter. The CDPO responded to the effect that the children
should be accommodated for one more month. After the said
period, no arrangement was made for rehabilitation of the
children in terms of reply to the letter. In the meanwhile,
petitioner sent another letter dated 30.04.2018 which expressed
its difficulty in continuing the Institution unless the aid is
provided. All these letters along with the reply of the Director,
OSCPS have been wrongly construed diversing their context &
intent. The authorities were swayed away by a few sentences in
the letters without gathering their true spirit. Had the
authorities rehabilitated the children in terms of their own
assurance, arguably the contention of Mr.Behura could have
gained acceptance. However, that was not to be.
4.6. It is noteworthy that on 25.06.2024, learned AGA had
fairly conceded before Co-ordinate Court that the impugned
order dated 07.08.2023 was defective and that a fresh decision
would be taken.
(i) The above said order reads as under:-
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate fairly contended that the
order dt.07.08.2023 which is impugned in the present Writ
Petition has not been passed in compliance to the earlier
order passed by this Court on 17.05.2023 in WP(C )
No.6925 of 2020.
4. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate contended that in
compliance to the order dt.17.05.2023, a fresh order will be
passed by 5th July, 2024 by giving opportunity to the
Petitioner
5. Considering the submission of learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate, list this matter on 08.07.2024. Opp. Party No.1 is
directed to pass a fresh order by giving opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to appear
before Opp. Party No.1 on 03.07.2024 for compliance..."
Accordingly, the decision was made on 06.07.2024 by the
jurisdictional opposite parties turning down claim of the
petitioner for Grant-in-Aid inter alia on the ground that the case
was not recommended by the State Government, which is the
implementing agency.
(ii) After hearing the parties, another Co-ordinate Judge, vide
order dated 16.01.2025, observed as under:-
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the stand taken in order dt.06.07.2024 so
passed pursuant to the order dt.25.06.2024 of this Court, it
is found that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of
Grant-in-Aid for the year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and
2023-24, though has been recommended to the
Government in the Ministry of Women and Child
Development vide different letters, learned Central Govt.
Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India contended
that no such recommendation was ever received to consider
the claim of the Petitioner.
4. Considering the same, this Court directs learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate to produce the copies of letters so indicated
in Clause-5(iv) 5(v) of order dt. 06.07.2024 on the next date.
5. Learned Central Govt. Counsel is also directed to file a
fresh affidavit indicating therein that no such proposal was
ever received as indicated in order dt.06.07.2024..."
Accordingly, the papers were filed by the State Government and
that is how the file became bulky at the hands of this Court.
After turning every page of the file, this Court finds force in the
submission of Mr.Mukherjee that the State and its Authorities
committed a gross error in recommending the case of petitioner
not as an existing Institution but as a new Institution. It hardly
needs to be stated that the parameters of consideration for fresh
grant much differ from those for the extension of grant. I repeat
that the case of petitioner is not even for the extension of grant
but against disruption of flow of long extended contributory aid,
on demonstrably wrong reasons.
(iii) As already mentioned above, there is absolutely no
complaint whatsoever against the petitioner. No aid, once
sanctioned, can be rescinded or suspended, save by following
the procedure prescribed under paragraph-5 of Vatslya Scheme,
which inter alia includes an opportunity of hearing & proven
misconduct. It is not the case of the opposite parties that an
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-society or that
there is any culpable conduct attributable to it. No reasonable
person in the arm chair of the authorities would have
discontinued the aid, for the discernable reasons from the
record, more particularly when the jurisdictional authorities,
after due periodic supervision, had found the conduct &
proceeding of the Institution perfectly adequate. They had even
recommended continuation of the aid.
4.7. The stand of the Central Government and also opposite
party no.7 in particular that there was no recommendation from
the State Authorities and therefore, the aid has been
discontinued is also not fully correct:
(i) The letter dated 07.03.2020 addressed by the Additional
Director, OSCPS was nothing but the recommendatory proposal
for sanctioning of the financial aid for the year 2020-2021. The
same has the following texts:
"Subject: Submission of Proposal under CPS for the
financial year 2020-21.
Madam,
In inviting reference to the subject cited above, I am to
submit herewith the proposal under Child Protection Services
for the financial year 2020-21 in the prescribed format for
kind consideration.
You are requested to consider and approve the proposal
and same may be forwarded to Finance Department of Govt.
of Odisha for financial concurrence for its onward
transmission to MWCD, New Delhi.
Encl: as above..."
(ii) Of course, the learned Senior Panel Counsel apart from
telling the Court about the unutilized amount of Rs. 416.00 lakh
earmarked for the project in question, draws attention to
paragraph-7 in the additional affidavit filed on 13.10.2025,
which reads as under:-
"7. That it is humbly submitted that the State of Odisha
leteron recommended the name of the Petitioner Organisation
in the financial year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-
24. However, the name of the Petitioner was not approved by
the PAB for the said financial years. In this respect, it is
submitted here that the details of the financial years 2020-
21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 were inadvertently not
mentioned in the earlier counter affidavit filed by the
Opposite Party No.7 and the Opposite Party No.7 seeks
unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for this
inadvertent lapses which is neither willful, nor deliberate on
the part of this Opp. Party."
(iii) The Panel Counsel also draws attention of the Court to
Paragraph-5 of the Minutes of Supplementary Project Approval
Board Meeting dated 15.10.2020 at Annexure-A/7 series, one of
which has the following text:
"5. PAB noted that State has requested 110 new NGO run
Children Homes, 2 new Government run Observation cum
Special Homes, 1 new Government run Place of Safety, 1
new Government run Specialized Adoption Agency, 5 new
NGO run SAAs and 20 new NGO run Open Shelters. PAB
observed that the State has requested a large number of
CCIs, however, as per the daily reports (14.0520) submitted
by State Government, 9076 children were residing in 244
CCIs, which indicates underutilization of existing capacity of
the CCIs in State. PAB advised the State to review the need
for CCIs vis-à-vis number of children requiring Institutional
care in the State. The review is imperative especially in the
light of restoration of a large number of Children in the
aftermath of COVID 19. It was also conveyed to the State
that the primary responsibility of taking care of vulnerable
children lies with the State Government and Central
Government is only assisting the State Government to fill the
gap in Child Protection services."
4.8. The above stand of the Central Government is more than
fair and needs to be appreciated. Whatever the Central
Government or opposite party no.7 had suggested & sought for,
the State & its officials were duty bound to accomplish so that
the huge unutilized money in crores could have been put to the
fructification of the avowed purpose by making allocation to
Institutions of the kind, which have been doing yeoman service.
A perusal of the bulky papers of the petition gives an impression
that the State and its officials did not treat the claim of
petitioner-society by following a fair standard procedure and due
deference. Mr.Mukherjee is right that once it is demonstrated
that the State had recommended the case of petitioner for
extension of the aid, of course with the arguable infirmities as
mentioned above and the Central Government is ready and
willing to make the grant available by passing the formal orders
keeping in view unutilized money of Rs.416.61 lakhs, no useful
purpose would be served by remanding the matter for
consideration afresh. Added to this, the petition at hand is a
second round litigation, the first having been fought in W.P.(C)
No.6925 of 2020 disposed off on 17.05.2023. Remand after
remand shakes the confidence of scrupulous litigants. The
power of Writ Courts is coextensive with that of the authorities
whose proceedings are put in judicial review. There is sufficient
material loaded to the record not only for invalidating the
impugned order but also for according the positive relief by way
of direction to continue the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the
petitioner, of course subject to usual compliances.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ
of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders dated
07.08.2023 at Annexure-1 and 06.07.2024 at Annexure-25
coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to sanction & release the
Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner for the period 2019-20 & onwards
within a period of three months, failing which delay would carry
interest @ 9% per annum.
It hardly needs to be stated that it is open to OP No.1 to
solicit any information from the side of Petitioner or from such
other Department as required for accomplishing the mandate
scripted above. The Petitioner and other Departments shall fully
cooperate in accomplishing it.
Costs reluctantly made easy.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the able
research and assistance rendered by its Law Clerk-cum-
Research Assistant, Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief.
Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all
concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 19th November, 2025/Amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
