Kerala High Court
Kerala Institute For Social Welfare ... vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2014/16TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 6030 of 2013 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
KERALA INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL WELFARE RESEARCH AND TRAINING,
PADMA NAGAR, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 036,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.SUNDER.
BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN (AROOR)
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695031.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN 695031.
3. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN 695031.
R1, R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. P.V. ELIAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 6030 of 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
WELFARE, SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED
01.01.1983.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.03.1986 ISSUED BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVING GUIDELINES FOR OPENING,
CONTINUING AND CLOSING DOWN OF TRAINING CENTERS, BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT,DATED 13.05.1999.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVT.OF INDIA, DATED 15.09.2005.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NOS.15900 AND
22556/2008, DATED 06.04.2009.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
WELFARE, SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
DT.30.07.2009.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
02.12.2009.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5047/2010, DATED
20.06.2012.
EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT
LEVEL VERIFIVATION COMMITTEE, DATED 10.08.2012.
EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DATED 12.10.2012.
EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
07.11.2012.
EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE WATER BILL DATED 06.07.2012.
EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 21.02.2008.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
--------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKV
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore - Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. On being granted sanction for running an Anganwadi Training Centrer under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) as per Ext.P1 the petitioner society started training centres to train Anganwadi Workers/Helpers under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. According to the petitioner, while such centres have been functioning without any hindrance in the year 2007, the State Government invited applications for starting Anganwadi training centres. Apprehending it as a step for de-recognition of the Centres belonging to the petitioner and attributing malafide intention behind such an action, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.22556 of 2008. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment alongwith another writ petition in W.P.(C) No.15900 of W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 2 2008. Evidently, this Court disposed of those two writ petitions as per Ext.P5 judgment with certain directions as hereunder:
(i) petitioner shall file an application, before the second respondent for continuing with their approval as an Anganwadi Training Centre in continuation of Ext.P1(a) in W.P. (C).22556/2008, within one month from today.
(ii) Such application shall be treated by the second respondent as one for continuing approval of the existing institution.
(iii) The fact that the petitioner did not apply for the year 2008-09 shall not constitute any disability in considering the petitioner' application for 2009-10, provided the same is submitted as aforementioned.
(iv) Unless the second respondent, on due enquiry, is convinced that there is any factor which constitutes disability qua the petitioner, they shall not be denied fresh batch of trainees for the year 2009-10 onwards treating them as approved institutions for the said year. If there is any disability, then a denial of continuance of approval can be decided by the second respondent, only after notice to the petitioner and after hearing them. Order, if any, to be passed by the second respondent shall give reasons for a decision that he may take in this regard.W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 3
(v) The amounts that are due to the petitioner by way of fixed cost, already incurred by them, prior to 1.4.2008 shall be disbursed to them within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Quantification of such amounts shall also be done by the second respondent. I make it clear that the amounts need be disbursed to the petitioner', only if the petitioner are otherwise entitled. If fresh applications are received for the year 2009-10 and if no disability or inadequacy is detected in so far as the petitioner are concerned, then taking into account the fact that the approved institutions are in existence from 1982 onwards, such approved institutions including the petitioner shall be given preference to fresh applicants, if all other factors are equal.
2. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the 1st respondent considered the application submitted by the petitioner for permission for continued approval from the existing institution and passed Ext.P7 Order dated 2.12.2009. Prior to that, the prayer of the petitioner for sanctioning the fixed cost was declared as per Ext.P6 Order.
3. A perusal of the Ext.P7 order would reveal that the request of the petitioner for permission to continue with the approval for the existing institution was declined W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 4 on the ground that the infrastructure facilities provided were too inadequate.
4. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing W.P.(C). No.5047/2010. It is evident from Ext.P8 judgment, in that writ petition that subsequent to Ext.P7 order, in tune with the directions thereunder, the petitioner submitted a fresh application seeking continued approval for conducting Anganwadi training centre. In fact, that application was produced in the said writ petition as Ext.P14. Taking note of the said aspect and the contention of the petitioner that infrastructure facilities were provided this Court directed the 1st respondent to take a decision on that application which referred as Ext.P14 therein, with notice to the petitioner and after conducting due enquiries within the time stipulated thereunder. Subsequently, the District Level Verification Committee formed by the State Government conducted an inspection in the premises in question and the said committee headed by the 3rd respondent submitted by Ext.P9 report dated 10.8.2012. W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 5 Obviously, as per Ext.P9 report, the said committee found that the infrastructure facilities provided by the petitioner in the said institute was sufficient to give training for 50 persons at a time. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions from the Social Welfare Director dated on 11.10.2012, the Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department alongwith the District Social Welfare Officer conducted a further inspection. After such inspection, Ext. P10 report has been furnished. It was found that the infrastructure facilities provided by the petitioner to the society was in fact, inadequate to give training to 50 students. The report in Ext.P10 in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:-
.. 20
. .
.
.
&
6 .
W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 6
.
.
. ( ) 50
. .
. 50
.
.
.
.
50 .
.
5. Thereafter, Ext.P11 order was passed by the 1st respondent on 7.11.2012. As per the same, the application submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected.
This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances, challenging Ext.P10 enquiry report and Ext.P11 order. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. The claims and contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition are refuted therein. It is stated W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 7 therein that the infrastructure facilities and amenities of the training centre was found inadequate for the purpose of imparting training to 50 students. It is based on Ext.P10 report that the Anganwadi Training Centre building belonging to the petitioner was found lacking the required facilities as stipulated in the Government of India guidelines that Ext.P11 order was passed. It is also stated therein that after verifying the report of the District Level Verification Committee made as per Ext.P8, the Government thought it fit to have a re-inspection of the cases. It was thereafter that the Assistant Director and also the 3rd respondent were directed to conduct a fresh inspection. The fresh inspection conducted by the said Officers culminated in Ext.P10 report and the impugned Ext.P11 order was passed after considering all the aspects. Upon such consideration of the facts reported in Ext.P10, it was found that the facilities provided in the institute in question are too inadequate and accordingly, the impugned Ext.P11 order was passed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 8 petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. I have already adverted to the facts and situations that constrained the petitioner to come up with this writ petition by challenging Ext.P10 report and Ext.P11 order passed by the 1st respondent. Though the petitioner raises challenge against Ext.P10 report, despite my earnest endeavour, I could not find any specific contentions taken by the petitioner against the finding of the facts in the said factual report made by the 3rd respondent and also the Assistant Director in Ext.P10 except the assertion that the petitioner has arranged about 3,500 square feet floor area for giving training to 50 persons at a time.
7. Evidently, it is reported the persons who are imparting the training at the centre are residing in the class room itself and that apart the class room was not plastered. About 20 coats were also seen stocked in the class room. Ext.P10 would reveal the inadequacies that constrained the 3rd respondent and also the Assistant Director to submit a report to the effect that the W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 9 infrastructure facilities provided in the petitioner's institution are too inadequate to conduct a training centre conforming to the standard prescribed in the guidelines by the Government of India. Despite such a specific report, those aspects were not at all specifically refuted by the petitioner in the writ petition. In such circumstances, this Court cannot find fault with the 1st respondent in accepting and acting upon the said report and passing such an order. If the institution run by the petitioner is lacking such facilities specifically mentioned in Ext.P10 one can only to come to a conclusion that it would be inappropriate to send trainees to such a centre. That exactly was the decision taken by the 1st respondent after perusing Ext.P10 in and vide Ext.P11. In the contextual situation, it will only be appropriate to refer to prayer No.C in the writ petition and the same reads as follows:
"issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to grant sufficient opportunity to make good of any deficiency noted by the verification committee in the basic facilities and W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 10 infrastructure provided by the petitioner with due notice to the petitioner."
8. Apart from the mere assertions that Ext.P10 report is submitted with a malafide purpose, no sustainable contentions have been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition to compel this Court to interfere with Ext.P10 or Ext.P11 which was passed based on Ext.P10. When a committee which conducted an inspection in the institute in question, reported that the facilities provided there under are inadequate and are not sufficient to meet the standards prescribed in the guidelines issued by the Government of India such a finding of the fact could not be interfered by this Court, especially, when no challenge has been made by the petitioner with respect to the factual findings of the fact with specific reasons and details. It may be true that on the strength of Ext.P1, the petitioner society had been conducted training centres for the Anganawadi Workers/Helpers under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) since 1983. However, that by itself cannot be a ground for this Court W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 11 to interfere with Ext.P11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to bring out a case warranting interference with Exts.P9 and P10. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the said circumstances made a further submission that taking note of the prayer No.C and the order in Ext.P7, the petitioner society may be permitted to provide further facilities to up lift the standard in conformity with the standards prescribed by the Government of India in its guidelines, taking into account the fact that, for more than a decade, it had been functioning on the strength of Ext.P1. I am of the view that the said submission is a reasonable one, especially taking note of the fact that such an opportunity was offered by the respondents themselves as is obvious from Ext.P7. Perhaps what prompted the respondents themselves to offer such an opportunity is the fact that the institution in question had been conducting such courses since 1983 till 2006. In the W.P.(C). No.6030 OF 2013 12 said circumstances, while declining to interfere with Ext.P9 and Ext.P10, liberty is granted to the petitioner to provide adequate facilities to raise the standard of the institution in conformity with the standards prescribed by the Government of India in its guidelines and to report the same to the 1st respondent and to make appropriate request through appropriate petitions.
In case of submission of such a petition it will only be appropriate for the concerned competent authority to consider the same, in accordance with law. Subject to the above, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
/True Copy/ P.A. To Judge SKV