"Utter Lack of Objectivity": Bombay High Court On CWCD's Refusal To Renew Licenses of 57 Child Care Homes

A division bench of Justices Magesh Patil and Sandeep Marne at Aurangabad directed the CWCD to re-consider proposals of at least nine NGOs who approached the court.

"The impugned communication is bereft of any concrete ground or reason for communication.

...[It] clearly demonstrates utter lack of any objectivity in decision making process and even has been taken without following the principles of natural justice."

The bench was particularly miffed at the fact that the petitioners were informed about the defects in their proposal after rejection of the proposal. It is like putting the cart before the horse, the bench said.

Petitioners Mother Teresa Balakashram, Indira Balgrah and several other NGOs were registered under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and were directed to apply for renewal of their licences by an earlier order of the High Court.

They approached the High Court after CWCD rejected their proposal for licence renewal.

Advocate SS Thombre for the petitioners submitted that in view of section 41 of the JJ Act 2015, there was no need for fresh registration and the NGOs only wanted their licenses renewed, but the CWCD has unmindfully treated the renewal as a fresh registration. Also, that they were not given an opportunity to be heard.

AGP MA Deshpande argued that strict compliance was required under the rules of the Act and the organisations should have applied for registration within a year of the new act being enacted. Also, there were enough number of child care institutions already registered with the department.

At the outset the Bench observed that the High Court had earlier already ruled under section 41(1) of the 2015 Act, organisations would have deemed registration but not for more than five years. Moreover, the whole object behind the Act was strict compliance with new provision.

However, the CWCD not only treated the license renewal as fresh proposals, he also did not point out deficiencies and give the petitioners a chance to make compliances within a specified time.

"He seems to have taken a bold decision of out-rightly rejecting the proposals of as many as 57 institutions in one stroke by the same communication…"

Regarding the CWCD's decision to inform institutions about the grounds for rejection of their proposals after the rejection, the court said, "We are afraid, it is a sheer afterthought. If the respondent no. 2 was of the opinion that the proposals of the petitioners' were deficient in some specific respect, he should have firstly notified the objections to the petitioners and called upon them to comply with it before taking any drastic decision of straightway rejecting the proposals."

The court has directed the petitioners to reapproach the CWCD and for the CWCD to take a final decision within 16 weeks.