Allowed

India Rural Evangelical Fellowship, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jun 2023WP/17261/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging notices issued to India Rural Evangelical Fellowship insisting on obtaining a license under the Women and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 for hostels attached to its schools. The High Court held that such hostels are exempt under Section 10(a) of the Act and quashed the notices.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices are quashed. The educational institutions run by the petitioner society are exempted from the purview of the Act, 1956.

India Rural Evangelical Fellowship, Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEGaSaNENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17261 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

District. ’ years. IREF. Gospal Field. Emmanual, Repalle.S/o.Guntur late and ...Petitioner 1. «« Secr^teWyS^a®'’ 2. GuntuSrict G2n?ur'"‘^ Welfare Department, 4. 5. DiSrS * Officer. Repalle Town Police Station. Repalle. Guntur ...Respondents

¶8

LA. NO: 10F 2016tWPMP. NO: 21234 OF 2016^ trte Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR WOMEN DEV-CHILD WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: order

¶9

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI * * * ***

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 17261 of 2016

¶11

Between:

¶12

India Rural Evangelical Fellowship, Rep. by its Director Rebba Emmanual, S/o. late Rebba Prasada Rao, Aged about 62 Years, IREF, Gospal Field, Repalle, Guntur District.

¶13

Petitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Chairman and District Collector, Women and Child Welfare Department, Guntur District, Guntur.

¶17

The Project Director,

¶18

District Women 85 Child Development Authority, Guntur.

¶19

Integrated Child Development Officer, Repalle, Guntur District.

¶20

The State House Officer, Repalle Town Police Station, Repalle, Guntur District.

¶21

Respondents

¶22

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :

¶23

20.06.2023.

¶24

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL

¶25

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA^ASAD

¶26

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

¶27

Whether copies of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?

¶28

Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

^/No

Y^/No

Yes/No

G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD,J

¶33

¶34

+ WRIT PETITION No. 17261 of 2016 % 20.06.2023 Between: * HOB BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANMAMAMENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
... .Petitioner ent, # India Rural Evangelical Fellowship, Rep. by its Director Rebba Emmanual, S/o. late Rebba Prasada Rao, Aged about 62 Years, IREF, Gospal Field, Repalle, Guntur District. Versus $ 1. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Departm. A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Chairman and District Collector, Women and Child Welfare Department Guntur District, Guntur.
3. The Project Director, District Women 85 Child Development Authority,
4. Integrated Child Development Officer, Repalle, Guntur District.
Respondents 5. The State House Officer, Repalle Town Police Station, Repalle, Guntur District.
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Reddy Koneti
A Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.Sanmukha Reddy, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
< Gist:
Head Note: >
? Cases Referred: Nil

¶35

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLB SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶37

WRIT PETITION No. 17261 of 2016

¶38

ORAL ORDER:

¶39

Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri A.Sanmukha Reddy, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for Respondent Nos.l to 4.

¶40

The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is

¶41

as under:

¶42

“It is prayed that the HonTale Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting and issuing notices to the petitioner to obtain license for the hostels established for the boarding of the children studying in the schools run by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Provisions of The Women’s and Children’s Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 105 of 1956) and consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to obtain the said license in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

¶43

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Society

¶44

titled as India Rural Evangelical Fellowship. The core

¶45

¶46

i..

¶47

objective of the Society is to run Educational Institutions.

¶48

****

¶49

About eight Educational Institutions are being run by the

¶50

Society which are as under:

¶51

“1.John’s Elementary School. 2.John’s High School. S.Repalle Chiristian Junior College, Repalle. 4. Repalle Christian Degree and Post Graduate College, Repalle. 5. Repalle Christian College of Education, Repalle. 6. Repalle Christian College of Nursing. 7-n^F Institute of Elementary Teacher Education, Repalle. 8.Institute.Repalle ” Christian Industrial Training 4. The Official Respondents have issued various Notices to this Writ Petitioner Society stating that the

¶52

Educational Institutions being run by the Society which have hostels shall have to apply and obtain license as per the provisions of the Central Act namely the Women’s and Children’s Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 105 of 1956) (herein after referred as “the Act, 1956”). In this regard Notices were issued to the Writ Petitioner Society on 17.12.2014 (Ex.PS) and 19.01.2015 (Ex.Pl). Having been aggrieved by the above Notices, the Writ

J...Is

■y

■ < V

Petitioner approached this Court by filing instant Writ Petition contending that the Educational Institutions run by the Writ Petitioner Society do not come under the purview of the Act, 1956.

¶58

Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner Society has drawn the attention of this Court to the various provisions of the Act, 1956. Particularly, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the definitions provided under Sub-Sections (b) & (c) of Section 2 and also Section 3 and Sub-Section (a) of Section 10 of the Act, 1956. They are as under:

¶59

“Sub-Sections (b> & (cl of Section 2;

¶60

(a)

¶61

(b) “Institution” means an institution established and maintained for the reception, care, protection and welfare of women or children;

¶62

¶63

Section 3;

¶64

3. Licensing of institutions: After the commencement of this Act, no person shall establish or maintain an institution except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted under this Act.

¶65

¶66

Sub-Section (al of Section 10;

¶67

10. Act not to apply to certain institutions: Nothing in this Act shall, apply to-

¶68

’Si-

¶69

(a) hostels, or boarding houses attached to, or controlled or recognised by educational institutions;”

¶70

Having referred to the above provisions, Sri .

¶71

Raja Reddy Koneti, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner Society submits that the provisions are clear that the' Act intends to exempt the hostels being run by the Educational Institutions from the purview of the Act.

¶72

Sri A.Sanmukha Reddy, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for Respondent Nos.l to 4 has stated that the Official Respondents have filed their CounterAffidavit. He has drawn the attention of this Court to an Order passed by the Honlile Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.473 of 2005 dated 11.09.2015. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the portion of the Order to indicate that the Educational Institutions are also covered under the Act as per the directions given by the HonTjle Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the Order

read out by Sri A.Sanmukha Reddy, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare is as under (internal page No.5 of the Order of the

¶77

Honhle Supreme Court):

¶78

“The Ministry of Women and Child Development will coordinate with all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that the unregistered homes are not given any funds unless they are registered. The State Govemments/Union Territories will ensure that children in unregistered homes should be shifted to registered homes.”

¶79

From the provisions of the Act, 1956, it appears to the Court that Section 2 (b) of the Act, 1956 defines Institution to mean an Institution established and maintained for the reception, care, protection and welfare of Women and Children. Sub-Section 3 of Section 2 of the Act, 1956 defines Licensing Authority to mean that the State Government or such Officer or Authority as may be prescribed. Section 3 of the Act, 1956 is an embargo imposed to establish or maintain an Institution except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence to be granted under the Act. Sub-Section (a) of Section 10 of the Act, 1956 stipulates that nothing shall apply to hostels.

:;.S

■X*'

or boarding houses attached to, or controlled or recognised by Educational Institutions.

¶84

The Sub-Section (a) of Section 10 of the Act, 1956 is clear inasmuch as the provision starts with a nonobstante clause clearly barring hostels or boarding houses which are attached to or controlled or recognised by the Educational Institutions from being brought under the purview of the Act, 1956.

¶85

This makes it very clear that the demand as raised by the Official Respondents cannot be sustainable inasmuch as it is not supported by the provisions of Law. The reliance placed by the Official Respondents on the Central Enactment namely the Women’s and Children’s Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 105 of 1956) is rather misplaced, and therefore, it cannot be sustained.

¶86

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the provisions of the above Act, 1956, cannot be applied against the Educational Institutions run by the Writ Petitioner Society. Therefore, the Impugned Notices as

¶87

¶88

¶89

mentioned above are unsustainable and hence quashed. It is clarified that the Educational Institutions run by the Writ Petitioner Society are exempted from the purview of the Act. Therefore, it goes without saying, that the Official Respondents cannot insist the Writ Petitioner Society to obtain licence under the Act, 1956 for the hostels attached to or controlled or recognised by the educational institutions.

¶90