Quashed

Balwant Kartar Anand Foundations Preet Mandir v. the Cental Adoption Resource Agency and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2010WP/4996/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the revocation of an adoption agency's recognition without a hearing. The High Court quashed the order for breaching natural justice, directing the authority to issue a show-cause notice instead.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.5.2010 quashed and set aside; direction to issue show-cause notice within six weeks.

Balwant Kartar Anand Foundations Preet Mandir Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 wp No.4996-10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4996 OF 2010

¶4

Balwant Kartar Anand Foundations preet Mandir ... Petitioners.

¶5

vs.

¶6

The Central Adoption Resource

¶7

Agency & Anr.

¶8

... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. adv., i/by Mr. Jagdish

¶10

G. Reddy for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Jay K. Bhatia for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, &

¶13

SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,JJ.

¶14

DATE : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2010.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The petitioner was recognised as a placement agency (RIPA) by the first respondent for the period 25.7.2009 to 24.7.2011, to place children in inter-country adoption. The 1st respondent is the Central Adoption Resource Agency, (CARA) an autonomous body set up by the Ministry of Social

¶17

2 wp No.4996-10

¶18

Justice and Empowerment. On 15.2.2010, the 1st respondent took a decision not to issue no objection certificates in cases of inter-country adoption involving the petitioner. This decision is stated to have been taken in view of the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation was conducting an investigation into allegations involving the conduct of the petitioners in inter-country adoptions.

¶19

On 20.5.2010, the Assistant Director of the 1st Respondent passed the following order revoking the recognition of the petitioners :-

¶20

" Whereas, Preet Mandir (Balwant Kartar Anand Foundation), Pune was given recognition from 25.07.2009 to 24.07.2011 to place children in Inter-country Adoption by CARA.

¶21

Whereas, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide its Order dated 20^th November, 2009 has asked Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct preliminary enquiry on points earlier not considered.

¶22

Whereas, CARA had decided not to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) in cases of Intercountry Adoption w.e.f. 15.02.2010.

¶23

Whereas, press release dtd. 17.05.2010 has been issued by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on their Website, registering a case against the Pune based foundation for wrongful sourcing of children.

¶24

Whereas, the recognition of Preet Mandir

¶25

3 wp No.4996-10

¶26

(Balwant Karter Anand Foundation), Pune for undertaking Inter-country Adoption is revoked with immediate effect."

¶27

Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioners before the recognition for conducting Intercountry adoption was revoked. No opportunity consistent with the principles of natural justice was afforded.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners is that the order of revocation has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶29

An affidavit in reply has been filed in this proceedings by the Deputy Director of the 1st respondent in which it has been stated as follows :-

¶30

"Inter-country adoption is a very sensitive matter where even receiving countries are equally concerned about the source of children. Since CBI is investigating the matter and it has already filed FIR against the agency, CARA did not feel its necessary to give an opportunity for all relevant records were available at CARA and agency was already given opportunity to improve its functioning in the year 2000 and in 2007."

¶31

The 1st respondent has stated that since the

¶32

¶33

4 wp No.4996-10

¶34

Central Bureau of Investigation was investigating the matter and had already filed an FIR, it did not consider it necessary to furnish an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. It has been stated that "all relevant records were available at CARA" and the petitioner had been given an opportunity to improve its working in the year 2000 and 2007.

¶35

Now it cannot be denied that an order of revocation of recognition granted to a placement agency is a matter of serious prejudice. Such an order can only be passed after complying with the principles of natural justice. The reasons indicated in the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent for not complying with the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. The filing of an FIR cannot be a ground to dispense with the principles of natural justice while issuing an order of revocation. Merely because the 1st respondent considered that all relevant records were available at CARA is no justification for not affording to the petitioner an opportunity of submitting its defence in response to the proposal for cancellation of recognition. Again, the fact that the petitioner was furnished with certain opportunities to improve its

¶36

5 wp No.4996-10

¶37

functioning in 2000 and 2007 cannot be a ground for denying an opportunity of being heard before an order of revocation was passed in May, 2010.

¶38

In the circumstances, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.5.2010 only on the ground of a breach of the principles of natural justice. We clarify that we have not had occasion, having regard to the stage of these proceedings, to inquire into the correctness of the allegations which have been made against the petitioners.

¶39

We accordingly, dispose of the petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 20.5.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, but while doing so clarify that it would be open to the 1st respondent, within a period of six weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner stating the grounds on which the recognition of the petitioner is sought to be revoked. The petitioner would be furnished an opportunity of submitting its reply to the notice and would be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken. In the

¶40

6 wp No.4996-10

¶41

meantime, prima facie, having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, we are of the view that the order of suspension passed by CARA shall continue to hold the field until a final decision is taken. In the event that CARA is of the view that any further interim directions are required to be issued so as to safeguard the interests of the minor children until a final decision is arrived at, it would be at liberty to issue necessary directions. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶43

(SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J.)

Balwant Kartar Anand Foundations Preet Mandir v. the Cental Adoption Resource Agency and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Kartar Anand Foundations Preet Mandir v. the Cental Adoption Resource Agency and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Chandna Vs Dean, Krishna Institute of Maedical Science and Ors.

Vithal Education and Research Institute Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

1. Smt. Kavita S. Motiramani and Anr. Vs 1. State of Mah. and Ors.

Ratnagiricha Raja Sarvajanik Ganesh Utsav Mandal Vs the Collector, Ratnagiri and Ors.

Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Dharmaraj Lazxman Nalawade and Ors. Vs the Collector Solapur and Ors.