Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010100972019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2991/2019 ST. FRANCIS DE SALES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. SATGAON, NARENGI, P.O. UDAYAN VIHAR, GUWAHATI-171, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. VERSUS THE ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS AND 3 ORS. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.3, BYE LANE NO.1, SAMANNAY PATY, SURVEY, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-28, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 2:THE CHAIRPERSON THE ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.3 BYE LANE NO.1 SAMANNAY PATH SURVEY BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28. 3:THE MEMBER THE ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.3 BYE LANE NO.1 SAMANNAY PATH SURVEY BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28. 4:SMT. KONGKI CHANGMAI Page No.# 2/4 M/O. SRI SANTANU CHANGMAI TO BE SERVED THROUGH ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.3 BYE LANE NO.1 SAMANNAY PATH SURVEY BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MS P DASGUPTA,MR. J PATOWARY,MS. C CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D NATH, MR D KALITA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 23.04.2026 Heard Shri J. Patowari, learned counsel for the petitionerS. Also Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This Court has noted in the order dated 20.04.2026 that the service upon the respondent no. 4 is complete who has chosen not to contest the proceeding. 3. Bereft of details, the present challenge is against an order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Chairperson, Assam State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (hereafter referred to as the Commission). By the aforesaid impugned order, the following recommendations have been made: “1. The Child should be immediately called and brought back and admitted in the school to continue his further studies and allowed to appear in XII board examinations. Page No.# 3/4 2. The school should immediately call the parent of the child and submit apology for the mental harassment and cruelty caused towards the child and for the financial loss incurred by the parent.” 4. Sri Patowari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without going into the detail facts of the case, the recommendations appear to be without any jurisdiction. He has submitted that the child in question was having behavioural issues for which the parents were also called and counseled and there was no change in such behaviour of the child and ultimately, the mother of the child had taken a Transfer Certificate and admitted him in another school. He has also submitted that the recommendations have been made by taking into consideration Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20125 which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission. 5. Shri Nath, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate has, however, fairly submitted that without even going into the merits of the challenge, the recommendations are apparently on two aspects, namely, admitting back the child to the School and tendering an apology for the mental harassment and cruelty and also for the financial loss incurred by the parents. He has submitted that so far as the first recommendation is concerned, since the mother of the child had already taken a Transfer Certificate and the child was admitted in some other School, the same recommendation has been rendered infructuous. So far as the second aspect is concerned, the respondent no. 4 has chosen not to carry forward the recommendations and has also chosen not to even contest the present proceeding. He has submitted that under the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court may pass appropriate orders. He, however, denies that the order in question suffer from any jurisdictional error. 6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, more particularly the aspect Page No.# 4/4 that in spite of the writ petition being pending for the last about 7 years, the respondent no. 4 has chosen not to contest the same or take the recommendations forward, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 24.04.2019 may not be taken forward by the appropriate authority in the Government. 7. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner as indicated above. 8. It is, however, made clear that no opinion has been rendered on the jurisdictional issue which may be answered in an appropriate proceeding. JUDGE Comparing Assistant