Bombay High Court
Sos Children Villages Of India vs The Honourable Minister, Women And ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
2026:BHC-AS:18103-DB
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.04.17
CHITNIS 18:39:58 +0530 wp.2379.2023-f.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2023
SOS Children Villages of India,
Near Agrasen High School,
Yerawada, Pune 411 006
Through its Village Director
T. Kotreshi, authorised person ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Minister
Women and Children Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Balgram SOS Childrens Village,
Maharashtra, Arjun Building,
4th Floor, Koregaon Road,
Pune 411001.
3. The Hon'ble Dy. Secretary,
Women and Children Development
Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Commissioner,
Women and Child Development Dept.,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
5. District Women and Child Welfare Officer,
Women and Child Development Department,
Pune.
N. S. Chitnis 1/38
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
6. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Pune 411 001.
7. Abhijit Pratap Pawar,
President of Respondent no.2,
Balgram SOS Childrens Village,
Maharashtra, Arjun Building,
4th Floor, Koregaon Road,
Pune 411001.
8. Mrunalini Abhijit Pawar,
Trustee of Respondent no.2
Balgram SOS Childrens Village,
Maharashtra, Arjun Building,
4th Floor, Koregaon Road,
Pune 411001. ...Respondents
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kashish Chelani, Mr.
Ranjit Shinde for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar with Ms. Rutuja Bhor, for the Respondent No.2.
Ms. Savita Prabhune, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Gayatri Kale with Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for the Interveners.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 9th APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.) :
1. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 18 th January 2023, passed by the Minister, Women and Child Development N. S. Chitnis 2/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc ('WCD') Department, thereby setting aside the order dated 20 th September 2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra, granting extension to the term of Administrator i.e. SOS Children Villages of India i.e. the Petitioner is cancelled; the license of the respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village is directed to be renewed as per Rules and the order dated 21st October 2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, is partially modified by granting permission to respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village, Yerwada Maharashtra, to look after the day to day management of the Child Care Home.
2. The brief facts of the history leading to the order impugned can be encapsulated as under:
In the year 1974, respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village, Maharashtra was established. The government of Maharashtra allotted land to the Balgram SOS Childrens Village Trust, for establishment of Child Development Complex in Survey No.239 at N. S. Chitnis 3/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc Yerwada, Pune. The institution was granted recognition with an intake capacity of 200 children for care and protection of the abandoned and orphaned children under Section 34(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the JJ Act"). On 16th July 2009 the Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department Pune issued a fresh certificate of recognition to the institution under Section 34(3) of JJ Act, 2006. The petitioner-organisation is an NGO recognised by the Ministry of Women and Child Development Department engaged in conducting child care programmes for the orphaned and abandoned children. These children are brought up in a family like environment, with care which is termed as a "Village". The petitioner institution has 32 villages in 22 States across the country.
On this background the petitioner started working in partnership with Balgram SOS Childrens Village (respondent No.2) from 1979, and was also funding its programmes. The respondent No.2 is an affiliate of the petitioner-organisation. Two serious incidents occurred in the respondent No.2-institution, one in respect of a six N. S. Chitnis 4/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc year old girl who was sexually abused by a fourteen year old boy from the same institution on 4th February 2013. Subsequent thereto, again a serious incident of sudden death of one inmate viz. Kalyani Anil Gite, a seven year old girl occurred on 2nd August 2013. Owing to the occurrence of the serious incidents in respondent No.2-institution its license was cancelled vide order dated 6 th January 2014, by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department, Pune, Maharashtra State. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent No.2 filed Writ Petition No.1084 of 2014, which was withdrawn with liberty to file Appeal before the State Government. The Appeal filed before the State Government was allowed by the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department vide order dated 21 st October 2014, thereby the recognition of respondent No.2 is restored. By the same order the petitioner was appointed as an Administrator over the respondent No.2 to look after its day to day administration for a period of five years, and the respondent No.2 is restrained from taking part in its day to day administration. The tenure of the petitioner has been extended by the government from time to time. N. S. Chitnis 5/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc The respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 20 th September 2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, WCD Department, extending tenure of petitioner as Administrator before the Minister of WDC Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. After hearing the respective parties the Hon'ble Minister has passed the order dated 18 th January 2023, which is received by the petitioner on 21 st January 2023. Thus, being aggrieved by the order dated 18 th January 2023, passed by the Minister the petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:-
[A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd 18.1.2023 passed by the respondent no.1; [B] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby restraining the respondents from taking any action in furtherance of the impugned order and the adminstratorship of the petitioner be continued till disposal of the present petition;
[C] During the pendency of this petition, if the impugned order is executed by taking management control alongwith actual and physical possession of the Yerawada, Pune unit and by removing the Administratorship of the petitioner, the same be directed to be restored to the petitioner; N. S. Chitnis 6/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc [D] The respondent nos3,4 and 5 be directed to admit children to the petitioner institution during pendency of this petition;
[E] That pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, interim stay be granted in terms of prayer cl. [a][b] and [c] and [d] above;
[F] Ad interim relief in terms of prayer cl.[a], [b] and [c]be granted;
[G] The Respondent nos 3,4,5 be directed to consider the request of the petitioner to grant permanent Administratorship permanent to Yerawada, Pune unit, to the petitioner institution;
[H] The Respondent no.6 Collector be directed to consider the request of the petitioner for granting lease of the Yerawada Unit land in its favour forthwith."
3. We have heard elaborate submissions of Mr. Anturkar, Senior counsel for petitioner on the previous date of hearing, as recorded in our order dated 18th March 2026. According to him the impugned order dated 18th January 2023 passed by the Minister reviews the order passed by the Principal Secretary WCD Department dated 21st October 2014. He submitted that there is no provision of review under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act. He would submit that neither JJ Act, 2000 nor JJ Act, N. S. Chitnis 7/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc 2015 provides any statutory mechanism for Appeal or Review against cancellation of license. Thus according to him, the order directing to renew the license of the respondent No.2 is beyond the powers of the Minister, WCD Department since the license of the respondent No.2 was already cancelled by the Commissioner, WCD Department vide order dated 6th January 2014.
This order of 6th January 2014 is modified vide order dated 21st October 2014. The order of cancellation of license of respondent No.2 dated 6th January 2014, has not been set aside, it is modified by restoring the final recognition granted to respondent No.2, dated 22nd August 2014. He would therefore submit that in absence of any statutory provision the order cancelling the license of respondent No.2, could not have been reviewed, since it is a settled position of law that, powers of review are not inherent, there has to be an enabling provision in the statute. The authority can either grant or cancel the license, there cannot be any review of such order. N. S. Chitnis 8/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
4. He further submitted that considering that the license of respondent No.2, was revoked on account of the serious incidents in the institution, resulting into the order directing students to be transferred to alternate institution pending further determination, in view of the distinct model and the expertise of the petitioner in the field, the petitioner has been appointed as an Administrator initially for a period of five years. This order of Administratorship was extended from time to time, as respondent No.2 was not holding a valid lease of the land, The Lease Agreement of the land where the institution is located had expired and the proposal submitted by the Commissioner, WCD Department to the Collector, Pune was still pending.
5. The tenure of the Petitioner as Administrator has been continued from time to time, particularly in view of the fact that, the respondent No.2 is not holding a valid license as per the statutory requirement of JJ Act, 2015. The JJ Act, 2000 stood repealed upon coming into force of JJ 2015, as a result of which the Child Care N. S. Chitnis 9/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc Homes are now governed exclusively by Section 41 of the JJ Act, 2015. This Act of 2015, has come into force with effect from 15 th January 2016.
6. In view of the provisions of the new enactment, the respondent No.2 was required to apply for a new license in accordance with Section 41 of the Act. It is submitted that assuming that the respondent No.2 was holding a valid registration in 2014 under the old Act, by virtue of proviso to Section 41(1) of JJ Act of 2015, even if it is deemed to be a valid registration, this registration is valid for only period of five years and it is required to be renewed every five years. It is further submitted that Rule 22(1)(b) of the Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018 (for short 'Rules of 2018'), requires renewal of the existing license within one year from the coming into force of the Rules i.e. by 13 th March 2018. The application submitted by respondent No.2 in the year 2018, is not in the prescribed format of Form 27 as provided in Rule 22(2) and Rule 23(2) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2018. N. S. Chitnis 10/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
7. The learned Senior counsel, has drawn our attention to the communication dated 20th January 2026, addressed to the respondent No.2 by the District Women and Child Development Officer, Pune to submit that, the proposal of the application for renewal of license made by the respondent No.2, has already been returned. As such no proposal for renewal of license of the respondent No.2 is pending. The registration of respondent No.2-institution under the old Act has lapsed automatically by operation of law, which is necessary to be renewed under the new enactment. Since respondent No.2 has failed to get itself registered under the provisions of the Act of 2015, the order directing renewal of its license does not hold good. The renewal of a license can happen only when there is a valid existing license held by an institution. As on date the respondent No.2 does not hold any valid license, hence, the order directing its renewal is of no consequence and thus, is not a valid order. In absence of a valid license the respondent No.2 is ineligible to run the Child Care Home, on this ground also the order impugned requires interference by this N. S. Chitnis 11/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc Court.
In addition it is urged that order passed by the Minister directing to renew the license is totally mechanical order without taking into consideration the provisions of law and ignoring the incidents that have occurred within the Child Care Home. The order restoring the management of the respondent No.2 for day to day administration is without verifying, whether it is safe, secure and reliable to hand over the children to the respondent No.2, in view of its previous record without ascertaining, whether any adequate measures have been taken by the respondent No.2, to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children, failure to conduct any such enquiry about removal of deficiencies by the respondent No.2 before passing the order impugned makes the impugned order arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the object of the JJ Act, 2015.
8. Mr. Anturkar, further submitted that, the Government is empowered to cancel or withdraw the registration of erring N. S. Chitnis 12/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc institutions who fail to comply with the prescribed standards. Upon cancellation of any license, the Government itself is obligated to manage the institution as per Section 41(7) of the JJ Act, 2015. Similarly, Rule 22(7) of Rules of 2018, mandates that if an institution has failed to apply for registration within the time frame laid down in the Act, or has not been granted provisional registration such institution shall either be managed by the State Government or the Children shall be transferred to some other institution, which is registered under the Act of 2015. This statutory scheme mandates that the Children shall be admitted only in registered institution, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Minister in the impugned order dated 18th January 2021.
Relying on the judicial pronouncement of this Court in the case of Jai Sevalal Sevabhavi Sanstha, v/s State of Maharashtra1 , it is submitted that in this judgment it is categorically held that, the institutions having valid registration under the Act of 2000, are deemed to be registered under the Act of 2015, but it is necessary for them to apply for renewal of registration within one year from the 1 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11631 N. S. Chitnis 13/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc enforcement of the Rules of 2018. Thus, applying the said ratio, the respondent No.2 institution having failed to register itself under the Act of 2015, and Rules of 2018, the order impugned, restoring the management of the respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of JJ Act, 2015.
He further submitted that even otherwise, the respondent No.2, has adopted the model of the petitioner-organisation, which is unique and different from the other Child Care Homes, and is also substantially funded by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is in a better position to continue with the administration. The petitioner has satisfactorily worked as Administrator and looked after the well being of the children competently without any report of untoward incident during its tenure. He would therefore urge that, in view of the total go by given to the statutory provision, various infirmities and procedural irregularities in the impugned order, the order passed by the Minister is required to be quashed and set aside by continuing the petitioner as Administrator. During the course of argument the learned senior counsel submitted that, even if the petitioner is not N. S. Chitnis 14/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc continued as an Administrator some other eligible institute is required to be appointed for the smooth functioning of the Child Care Home, in the interest and welfare of the Children.
9. Per Contra Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village, Pune, the contesting respondent submitted that, the respondent No.2 has been granted recognition and registration certificate under Section 34(3) of the JJ Act, 2006 on 16th July 2009. Although the Commissioner, WDC, Pune, has withdrawn the recognition and the license granted in favour of the respondent No.2 vide order dated 6 th January 2014, the Principal Secretary, WCD Department has restored the certificate of recognition vide order dated 21st October 2014. However, by the same order the petitioner is appointed as Administrator for managing the Child Care Home, for a period of five years till September 2019. In the year 2019, the respondent No.2 had already filed application for seeking renewal of its license under the JJ Act, 2015. He submitted that although he had addressed several communications to the N. S. Chitnis 15/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc respondent-authorities requesting restoration of the administration of the Child Care Home, the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department extended the tenure of the petitioner as Administrator initially for a period of six months, which was further extended by the Officer, WCD Department, until further orders vide order dated 21 st October 2020. When this order of 21st October 2020 was challenged in Writ Petition No.3124 of 2022, by respondent No.2, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department to hear the respondent No.2 and take a fresh decision about continuation of the petitioner as an Administrator. Unfortunately the grievance of the respondent No.2 was not redressed by the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department on the contrary the term of the petitioner as an Administrator was extended for a further period of one year vide order dated 20th September 2022. Being aggrieved by this order dated 20 th September 2022, the respondent No.2 has preferred a representation before the Minister, WCD Department, which is decided vide order dated 18th January 2023, by setting aside the order dated 20 th September 2022, and granting the respondent No.2 permission for N. S. Chitnis 16/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc administration and day to day management of the said Child Care Home along with directions to renew its license as per Rules.
He submitted that this order directing renewal of its license is perfectly in consonance with the Rules and Regulations. In response to the various objections raised by the petitioner to the impugned order, he submitted that at the outset he would like to point out that, the lease of the land on which the respondent No.2, is presently running the Child Care Home, has been renewed from 30 th September 2025 to 29th May 2055 i.e. for a period of 30 years. Thus, there is no impediment to conduct the affairs of the Child Care Home on the said land. Upon passing of order of renewal of lease by the Collector, vide order dated 30th September 2025, the respondent No.2 has already paid the lease amount.
So far as the status of application of the respondent No.2 for renewal of its license is concerned, the application has been returned by the Officer of WCD Department, without assigning any reasons. The respondent No.2 has taken concrete corrective measures after the two serious incidents which includes providing separate N. S. Chitnis 17/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc facilities for girls and boys; initiation of criminal proceedings against the responsible persons; replacement of entire set of employees; the board of trustees have been replaced completely. Even the recommendations of the Committee chaired by former Judges have been fully implemented. Only after appreciating the corrective measures taken by the respondent No.2, the order has been passed by the Hon'ble Minister and the respondent No.2 has already taken over the day to day administration of the Child Care Home. Since taking over the charge not a single untoward incident is reported.
In response to the allegations of maladministration and the irregularities committed by respondent No.2, he submitted that respondent No.2 is not accountable for the unfortunate incidents leading to cancellation of its registration. These incidents have occurred when the Village Director and Project In-charge appointed by the petitioner was heading the facility center. According to him, as per the Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, more particularly Clause - 3 of the Memorandum of Agreement, provides that the Village Director and Project In-charge for N. S. Chitnis 18/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village, is appointed by petitioner itself. Thus, it is not appropriate to hold the respondent No.2 responsible for the two untoward incidents occurred in the institution. One of the reasons that is attributed to the incident of sexual abuse reported between the two children is, keeping of girls and boys together. It is submitted that this pattern of keeping them together is adopted as per the Model prepared and followed by the petitioner. However, pursuant to the incident the respondent No.2 has taken corrective measures.
He further submitted that, as regards the right of the petitioner to continue as an Administrator is concerned, the appointment of an Administrator is a temporary arrangement due to the prevailing circumstances at that particular time, continuation of which cannot be claimed as of right. He submitted that, vide order dated 21st October 2014, passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department, the registration certificate of respondent No.2 is restored. By the same order, the petitioner was appointed as Administrator for five years. During this period, the respondent No.2 has removed the N. S. Chitnis 19/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc deficiencies and ensured compliance of regulatory measures within the frame work of JJ Act, 2006. It has also complied with all the directions and has taken necessary corrective measures to ensure proper functioning of Child Care Home. Inspite of long tenure of eight years as Administrator, the petitioner still wants to continue with the same arrangement, which is not supported by any legal provision.
In the impugned order, challenge is raised to the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department granting the petitioner further extension for a period of one year. The petitioner as an Administrator does not have any statutory right to continue for years together. The order impugned is passed after granting opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The Hon'ble Minister being the head of the department is fully competent to examine the legality and proprietory of the order passed by the subordinate authority.
As regards the objection of the petitioner about powers of review it is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner itself is passed by reviewing the earlier order passed by the Minister, WCD Department, on 27th May 2014. Therefore, the petitioner in a way is N. S. Chitnis 20/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc raising challenge to the order, which appoints him as an Administrator. Hence, in view of the fact that the order passed by the Minister, WCD Department, is already implemented by taking over the charge of the Child Care Home, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition, hence it deserves to be dismissed.
10. The learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent No.1, 3 to 5 submitted that by order dated 6th January 2014, the recognition and registration certificate of respondent No.2 has been cancelled. The Revision Petition filed by the respondent No.2, has been partly allowed on 21st October 2014, by restoring the registration of respondent No.2. So far as the order dated 21 st October 2014, is concerned it is submitted that the respondent No.1 has held that after restoring the registration certificate of the respondent No.2 there is no provision to extend the period of Administrator. In view of Section 41(7) of the JJ Act, 2015, if the State Government withholds registration of any institution, only the State Government can work as an Administrator for that period. In view of the statutory framework, the petitioner N. S. Chitnis 21/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc cannot claim continuation of its tenure as an Administrator for the Child Care Home. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 18 th January 2023, directing the renewal of license of respondent No.2, the State Government has directed respondent No.4 to submit the proposal of respondent No.2 for recognition and registration. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 has submitted it which is pending for consideration and appropriate decision of the Government.
It is further submitted that, the order dated 18 th January 2023, is already implemented on 6th February 2023, the present petitioner has handed over the management and control with actual physical possession of the Child Care Home, to the respondent No.2 on 6th February 2023 itself. Since then, the Child Care Home at Yerwada Pune, is being run by the respondent No.2 in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the JJ Act, 2015.
Appraising this Court about the present status of the respondent No.2-institution it is submitted that, in the month of May 2024, the total number of children in respondent No.2-institution is
101. The respondent No.2 has provided educational and vocational N. S. Chitnis 22/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc courses to the admitted Children. The respondent No.2 has already taken over the charge of the Child Care Home and provided all facilities. In view thereof, the interim relief as prayed during the admission of the matter, has been rejected by this Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner-institution does not hold a registration certificate for running a Child Care Home. Thus the petitioner is not eligible to conduct and manage the Child Care Home as per the provisions of JJ Act, 2015. Hence, the writ petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the respective counsel at length and perused the documents placed on record. The chronology of the events as pleaded by both the parties can be summarized as under:-
(1) The respondent No.2 is registered for the purpose of establishing full fledged Child Development Complex and has been awarded land admeasuring 9 acres 14 gunthas vide order dated 28th December 1977.
(2) In the year 1997 grant is sanctioned to the respondent N. S. Chitnis 23/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc No.2 with intake of 200 children. In accordance with Section 34(3) of the JJ Act, 2006 a fresh registration certificate was issued on 16th July 2009.
(3) After the two serious incidents of 4 th February 2013 and 2nd August 2013, the registration of the respondent No.2 was cancelled vide order dated 6th January 2014, against which Appeal was filed before the Minister, WCD Department and after hearing the parties, the Minister has passed an order on 27th May 2014, confirming the order of the Commissioner, WCD Department, cancelling the license of the respondent No.2. Further directions are issued to transfer the children in the Child Care Home elsewhere. It is directed that after examining whether the property of respondent No.2 can be seized by the Government, if possible Administrator should be appointed, and the children should be returned to the Child Care Home, but in no case children should be given in custody of respondent No.2.
(4) Against the order of the Minister, dated 27 th May 2014 the respondent No.2 filed a Review Petition and upon hearing the N. S. Chitnis 24/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc parties the Review is allowed, the earlier letter of the Government dated 22nd August 2014 is amended. The recognition issued by the Commissioner, WCD Department to the respondent No.2 is restored. However, it is directed that, the petitioner will appoint an Administrator over Balgram SOS Childrens Village, Pune for next five years for its day to day administration. This order is passed on 21st October 2014.
(5) The petitioner continued as Administrator for a period of five years and thereafter was continued for further six months as recommended by Commissioner of WCD Department vide order dated 10th December 2019.
(6) Being aggrieved by the order granting extension without giving hearing to the respondent No.2, Writ Petition No.3124 of 2022 was preferred, wherein directions are given by this Court to decide the order of continuation of Administrator after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.2. Accordingly, the parties appeared before the Joint Secretary, WCD Department, Mumbai, who after the hearing the parties, granted further N. S. Chitnis 25/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc extension of period of one year, vide order dated 20 th September 2022.
(7) The respondent No.2 again approached this Court in Writ Petition No.14856 of 2022, against the order of 20 th September 2022 however, during the pendency of the writ petition, it came to be withdrawn on the ground that the parties have approached the Minister, WCD Department.
(8) The Minister, after hearing the respective parties has passed an order on 18th January 2023, thereby the order dated 20 th September 2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, WCD Department, Maharashtra extending the tenure of Administrator has been quashed and directions are issued to renew the license of the respondent No.2 as per Rules. Simultaneously, the order dated 21 st October 2014, passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department has been modified and the respondent No.2 is permitted to conduct the day to day administration of Child Care Home.
N. S. Chitnis 26/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc (9) This order passed by the Minister, WCD Department is assailed by the petitioner on the following grounds:-
a. The Minister has committed an error by modifying the order passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department dated 21st October 2014, since it amounts to Review. b. The order directing to 'Renewal' of license of the respondent No.2 is not tenable and contrary to the Rules, since the respondent No.2 is not holding a valid license, after coming into force of the JJ Act of 2015 and Rules of 2018, thus the order of 'renewal' is not enforceable.
c. In view of the serious irregularities committed by the respondent No.2, which has resulted in serious legal consequences of cancellation of its license, the learned Minister has committed a grave error by passing impugned order, without verifying whether the respondent No.2 has taken corrective measures and is competent to, again undertake the day to day administration of Child Care Home.
N. S. Chitnis 27/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
12. Though contentious issues are raised by the petitioner at the threshold itself, we will have to examine whether the petitioner has a locus to challenge the impugned order and whether it has any right to continue as an Administrator. It is the settled position of law that appointment of an Administrator is a stop gap arrangement, which cannot be continued in perpetuity. Similarly, there is no vested right in an Administrator to seek continuation of his tenure. The maintainability of the writ petition will also have to be assessed in context with the right asserted by the petitioner. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be invoked only for enforcement of legal rights. Since the petitioner has failed to establish existence of any legal and enforceable right to continue as an Administrator in his favour, the invocation of writ jurisdiction becomes unsustainable.
13. The other impediment in granting the prayer of the petitioner is that Section 41 of the JJ Act 2015, mandates Child Care Homes should be registered under the Act. If they hold a valid N. S. Chitnis 28/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc registration under the JJ Act, 2000, on the date of commencement of the Act of 2015, they are deemed to be registered under this Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not come with a case that it holds any registration, under either of the enactments. The State authorities in their affidavit also have specifically raised objection in this regard, opposing continuation of the petitioner as Administrator, since it does not hold a valid registration. Thus, we do not find any merit in the prayer of the petitioner seeking restoration of its appointment as Administrator by removing the respondent No.2 who has already taken charge upon passing of the order impugned.
14. The petitioner's other ground of challenge to the impugned order is about, the power of the Minister to modify the order passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department dated 21 st October 2014, on the ground that it amounts to reviewing the order of Principal Secretary. According to the petitioner the powers of review not being inherent, but conferred by statue, the impugned order is not maintainable.
N. S. Chitnis 29/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
15. Assuming without admitting that, no such powers of Review vests in the Minister, it needs to be appreciated that, even the order appointing the petitioner as an 'Administrator', issued by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department, vide order dated 21 st October 2014 is passed in exercise of the powers of Review. Upon perusal of order dated 21st October 2014, it reveals that an order is passed by the Minister, WCD Department, on 27th May 2014, which is reproduced in the order, confirms the order of cancellation of license of respondent No.2, passed by the Commissioner, WCD Department, dated 6th January 2014, with a direction to transfer the children to other institution, and recommends appointment of Administrator. This decision was conveyed to the Commissioner, WCD Department, Pune vide communication dated 22nd August 2014, to take further steps and submit a compliance report. When a Review of the order passed by the Minister, is filed by the respondent No.2, during the hearing it was brought to the notice of the Principal Secretary, WCD Department, N. S. Chitnis 30/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc that, in case the recognition of the respondent No.2, is cancelled, it will require relocation of the Children, and appointment of Administrator would not be possible. Similarly the land leased to the respondent No.2 for the Child Care Home will revert back to the Revenue Department.
Upon realising the practical difficulties in implementing the order dated 27th May 2014, passed by the Minister, the Review Petition is allowed, by restoring the recognition of respondent No.2, and appointing the petitioner as an Administrator.
If we accept the submission of the petitioner, the very appointment of petitioner as an Administrator, would not be maintainable. If the initial appointment itself is without powers, the subsequent orders granting continuation would also becomes unsustainable. In the result, this objection of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
16. The learned Minister, while passing the impugned order has, observed that, there is no provision in the Act to extend the tenure N. S. Chitnis 31/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc of Administrator. It needs to be appreciated that basically the challenge before the Minister was the extension of tenure of the petitioner as an Administrator, granted vide order dated 20 th September 2022. The Minister while deciding the issue of extension has held that, there cannot be extension for the tenure of the Administrator. Relying on Section 41(7) of the JJ Act, 2015, it is held that Administrator can manage only until such time the registration of the institution is renewed and it is only the State Government who can manage the institution till such period.
In view of the restoration of recognition of the institution vide order dated 21st October 2014 the respondent No.2 had filed application under the new enactment for renewal of its license. It was recorded by the Minister that the term of Administrator of five years had already expired in 2019, thereafter the petitioner had continued for a further period of three years by issuing orders from time to time. However, according to him, once having restored the recognition of the petitioner there is no provision in the Act to continue the Administrator. It is therefore held that, in absence of a statutory N. S. Chitnis 32/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc provision in the Act for continuation of the Administrator, the order passed by the Joint Secretary, WCD Department, dated 20 th September 2022 is not a valid order.
Section 41(7) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act), 2015 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus:-
"41.
(7) The State Government may, after following the procedure as may be prescribed, cancel or withhold registration, as the case may be, of such institutions which fail to provide rehabilitation and reintegration services as specified in section 53 and till such time that the registration of an institution is renewed or granted, the State Government shall manage the institution."
Upon careful reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that the appointment of an Administrator is a temporary and regulatory measure intended to ensure the proper management of the institution, till the original management can again take over by removing the deficiencies. If we accept the contention of the petitioner, it would result in converting a temporary arrangement into a continued situational arrangement which is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Even otherwise, the appointment of an Administrator under any enactment is for a limited period and it N. S. Chitnis 33/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc cannot be extended beyond a particular period, therefore, we do not find any error committed by the learned Minister while refusing to continue the petitioner as an Administrator.
As a result of setting aside of the order dated 20 th September 2022 the question of administration of the Child Care Home would have arisen, considering that the recognition of respondent No.2 is restored, and it was also demonstrated before the Minister that, the respondent No.2 has taken corrective measures after the two serious incidents in 2013. The respondent No.2 has fully implemented the recommendations made by the Committee chaired by the former Judges; Criminal proceedings were initiated against the erring responsible persons; entire set of employees was replaced and the board of trustees is replaced. They have also segregated girls and boys by providing separate facilities. Coupled with the fact that the unique concept of the petitioner-NGO, is adopted by the respondent No.2, which no other institution is capable of implementing, hence, the order directing to restore the day to day administration to the respondent No.2 is passed.
N. S. Chitnis 34/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc Considering that the application for renewal of license of respondent No.2 was already made and pending at that point of time, alongwith its previous experience to conduct the affairs of Child Care Home on the model of petitioner, the learned Minister has passed the order in the interest of the children in Child Care Home, which cannot be faulted.
Even though we have refused to entertain the challenge of the petitioner on the ground of locus, some additional factors, also disentitle the petitioner of the relief. Though the petitioner is raising challenge to the powers of the Minister, WCD Department to pass the impugned order, the petitioner has not raised any such objection before the Minister, inspite of participating in the proceedings before him. In fact upon perusal of the contents of impugned order, it is evident that, the petitioner seems to be more interested in the land in Pune, for conducting the activities of its organisation, the stand of the petitioner in its own words recorded in the order is as follows:-
"4) As stated by Mr. T Kotresh, representative of SOS Children's Villages, India, Pune, in the oral argument, we require premises of Pune to conduct programs for the children of the applicant organization N. S. Chitnis 35/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc at Yerwada Pune. Also, they stated at the hearing that apart from our written statement, we do not want to say anything more. Also, no legal comment was made on the validity of the appointment of an administrator."
As regards the responsibility of the two serious incidents of death, and sexual abuse of children in the Child Care Home during 2013, is concerned, on going through the Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and respondent No.2 dated 27 th April 2004, we find substance to some extent in the contention of the respondent No.2. According to Clause - 3 of the Agreement the petitioner is empowered to recruit and appoint the Village Director and Project In-charge for the SOS Children Villages of India, Pune. Their service conditions are governed by Service Rules of the Petitioner-organisation. The day to day matters are reported to the President of Balgram Maharashtra, but its ultimate reporting and supervising authority is vested in the National Director, SOS India. Thus the In-charge of Child Care Home, when the incidents of 2013 occurred the Officer, appointed by petitioner was looking after administration and reporting to the petitioner. From reading of the N. S. Chitnis 36/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc above clause, it appears that, the respondent No.2 alone could not have been held responsible for the incidents. In view of the above observations the balance does not tilt in favour of the petitioner.
Even though we are not inclined to entertain the challenge to the order passed by the Minister, the other ground raised by the petitioner about the failure of the respondent No.2 to renew its license and its ineligibility to run the Child Care Home, in our view cannot be ignored. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 as on date only holds recognition, its proposal for renewal of license appears to have been returned, with a rider to resubmit it, as and when directed by Government. The reason for return of proposal is not disclosed in the communication dated 20th January 2026. Functioning of Child Care Home, requires registration under the JJ Act, 2015, as on date the respondent No.2 does not hold any license. However, considering the fact that, the respondent No.2 has already taken over the administration of the Child Care Home pursuant to the impugned order dated 18th January 2023, on 6th February 2023, hence we do not N. S. Chitnis 37/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 ::: wp.2379.2023-f.doc intend to disturb the arrangement which is in place for so long and thereby disturb the children in the Child Care Home abruptly. However it needs to be ensured that the Child Care Home is run by a registered institution as contemplated under the JJ Act 2015, thus in order to subserve the interest of justice, we direct the Competent Authority under the JJ Act 2015, to decide the application for renewal of license of the respondent No.2, on its own merits, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 38/38 ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::