Disposed

Ravinder Singh Dhull v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2012CWP/20099/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a writ petition filed regarding the mysterious disappearance of children from Snehalaya in Chandigarh. After reviewing an inquiry report and suggestions from the Legal Services Authority, the Court observed that implementing the suggested remedial measures would improve living conditions. The petitioners withdrew their prayer, and the petition was d

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of. The Court observed that the respondents have decided to adhere to the suggestions made by the Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority.

Ravinder Singh Dhull Vs Ut of Chandigarh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision: 13.9.2012

¶4

Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.

¶10

Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate, Petitioner, in person.

¶11

Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to initiate an independent inquiry, to look into doubtful disappearance of the children from Snehalaya situated in village Maloya, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

¶14

Pursuant to the issuance of notice of motion, reply was filed by the respondents wherein it was stated that an inquiry had already been conducted by Manju Bhalla, Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Union Territory, Chandigarh regarding functioning of the above Snehalaya. On considering the inquiry report, this Court had passed the following order on 14.5.2012:-

¶15

“The enquiry report submitted by Ms. Manju Bhalla, Member Juvenile Justice Board, Union Territory, Chandigarh

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶17

¶18

as well as Shri Vinod P. Kavle, I.A.S. Reveals shocking facts with regard to the functioning of Snehalaya which was started with much fanfare. It has 250 children. The extreme lapses which have been found by two members committee need not be highlighted by burdening the instant order as the report is self speaking. Certain steps have been taken by the Chandigarh Administration to remedy the situation and an action taken report has been submitted, which is taken on record as Mark-A.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid enquiry report as well as the action taken report, we direct the Member Secretary, Union Territory Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh to undertake complete study of the enquiry report and the action taken and suggests further steps consistent with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the Rules. The Member Secretary shall also give details of the functioning of the Snehalaya and the remedial steps which may be taken for its proper functioning.

¶20

Let a copy of the paper book along with enquiry report and action taken report be furnished to the Member Secretary, Union Territory Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. The literature available with the Legal Services Authority on the Juvenile Justice Act must be examined and if necessary the same be put on record as well.

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶22

¶23

Vide the above order, Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Union Territory, Chandigarh was asked to undertake a study regarding living conditions of the inmates of Snehalaya and to suggest ways and means to improve the same. In response thereto, a detailed study report has been submitted to the Court by the Member Secretary. After taking into consideration the facilities available and the deficiencies found in the Snehalaya, the Member Secretary has given the following suggestions for its proper functioning:-

¶24

“1. The different wings of engineering departments should take keen and active interest in the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings. (As per the Rules the kitchen/mess has to be fly proof but the engineering department has not been attending to the complaints of broken windows/nets etc. which allows fly and mosquitoes in the kitchen. Similarly, there is dampness in different parts of the buildings. White-wash has also not been done for quite some time.) Instead of receiving complaints from the office of Snehalaya there should be a mechanism of atleast quarterly inspection of the building by the various wings of engineering department/s to ensure prompt action.

¶25

2. The open space in the back portion which has been designated as play ground has to be made even. Children above the age of 14 can be roped in to

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶27

¶28

provide shram-dan alongwith the workers hired for the job. This will inculcate in them a sense of belonging and discipline.

¶29

3. Likewise, a kitchen garden should be developed in a portion of the open space where children above the age of 14 can work as a hobby as well as a vocational training in gardening.

¶30

4. As per Rule 55(7) of the Rules of 2009, it is the duty of Management Committee to set-up a complaint redress mechanism in every instruction. For that purpose a Children's Suggestion Box is envisaged to be installed at a place easily accessible to juveniles and children away from the office set up and closer to the residence or rooms or dormitories of the children.

¶31

Rule 55(8) of the Rules of 2009 makes it clear that the Children's Suggestion Box, whose key shall remain in the custody of the Chairperson of the Management Committee, shall be checked every week by the Chairperson of the Management Committee or his representative from State Child Protection Unit, in the presence of the members of the Children's Committees.

¶32

Compliance of the provisions needs to be made. This will give the children a voice and the

¶33

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶34

¶35

management an opportunity to improve.

¶36

5. Every child/juvenile should be given an identity card to be worn mandatorily.

¶37

6. To avoid competition amongst children to wear better clothes than the others, there should be a uniform/dress for all. An exception can be made for the children who go to different schools/institutes.

¶38

7. There should be rewards to the children as an encouragement to steady work and good behaviour as envisaged in Rule 57 of the Rules of 2009.

¶39

8. Children's Committees should meet every month and maintain a register for recording their activities and proceedings. They should be encouraged to participate in the activities enlisted in Rule 56 of Rules of 2009.

¶40

9. Children of Snehalaya should be encouraged to participate in sports and cultural events/competitions. The services of Coaches in different disciplines should be taken to hone the skills of the children. (Right now the children are not being taken outside the premises of Snehalaya for the fear that some of them may run away. This fear has to be shed. The staff needs to be told that they should discharge their duties without fear of any kind.)

¶41

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶42

¶43

10. Record of personal belongings of every child should be maintained so that they could be handed over to him at the time of release.

¶44

11. There are certain cases of real brothers and sisters staying in Snehalaya. They are not allowed to meet each other except when their parents/relatives come to visit them. There should be a relaxation in this rule/norm. Real brothers and sisters should be allowed to meet atleast once a day.

¶45

12. There should be a suggestion box at the main gate for the parents and relatives. This suggestion box should also be operated like the Children's Suggestion Box.

¶46

13. The administration should prepare sponsorship programme as envisaged in Section 43 of the Act and Rule 37 of the Rules of 2009.

¶47

14. As per the requirement of Rule 50(12) of Rules of 2009 an Individual Care Plan for every juvenile or child in Snehalaya and other institutions of like nature should be developed with the ultimate aim of rehabilitation and reintegration of the child.

¶48

15. There should be establishment or recognition of After Care organizations to carry out the after-care programmes for the juveniles/children after they leave Snehalaya/other children homes for the

¶49

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶50

¶51

purpose of enabling them to lead an honest and industrious and useful life. (Section 44 of the Act)

¶52

16. The Administration should declare Governmental or registered non-governmental organizations or voluntary organizations prepared to own the responsibility of a child as 'Fit Institutions' within the meaning of Section 2(h) and the social workers/other persons as 'Fit Persons' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act. These institutions/persons will be a great help in the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child released from the Children Home.

¶53

17. There should be a regular training and capacity building of personnel involved in the implementation of the Act in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules.

¶54

18. To ensure that the best persons are appointed as members of the Committees there should be a Selection Committee in place as per the requirement of Rule 90 of the Rules of 2009.

¶55

19. There is a need for the Administration to constitute an Advisory Board as required by Rule 92 of the Rules of 2009, for inspection of institutional services and for making recommendations to the administration.

¶56

20. There is need of maintaining openness and

¶57

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶58

¶59

transparency. Social workers, NGOs, Researchers, Medicos, Academicians and media should be allowed to visit Snehalaya on selective basis keeping in view the security, welfare and interest of the children.

¶60

21. Administration should create an Juvenile Justice Fund as stipulated in Rule 94 of the Rules of 2009.

¶61

22. Block 'B' should be made functional at the earliest possible only then there would be possibility of segregation of boys atleast, as per the age-groups suggested in Rule 29 of the Rules of 2009.

¶62

23. Whenever a child is restored to his family, there should a quarterly follow-up by the Child Welfare Officer/Probation Officer/NGO for a period of two years atleast, as per the requirement of Rule 65 of Rules of 2009.

¶63

24. Last but not the least, there should be a regular monitoring and evaluation by the Administration. The system of Social Audit to be carried out with the support and involvement of organizations working in the field of Child Care and Protection and autonomous bodies indicated in Rule 64(2) of the Rules of 2009 has to be in place.”

¶64

On the last date of hearing, we had directed counsel appearing for Union Territory, Chandigarh to place on record its

¶65

Civil Writ Petition No. 20099 of 2011

¶66

¶67

response, if any, to the suggestions made by the Member Secretary. Today, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondents has intimated this Court that the Administration in principal has decided to adhere to the suggestions given by the Member Secretary.

¶68

On going through the suggestions referred to above, we are of the view that if those are implemented with commitment, the living condition in the Snehalaya would certainly be improved where the children are brought for protection. We hope and trust that the administration will make every endeavour to implement the suggestions given by the Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Union Territory, Chandigarh in its letter & spirit.

¶69

This writ petition stands disposed of with the observations made above.

¶70

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶71

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶72

September 13, 2012 “DK”

Ravinder Singh Dhull v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Dhull v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Partap Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Suman Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satish Son of Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Phal Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Residents Welfare Association etc. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shamsher Vs State of Haryana & Ors.