( 1 ) 926 wp 7948.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 WRIT PETITION NO. 7948 OF 2025 KAI. BAPU BALSADAN SANGWI AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANOTHER ….. Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Jadhav Vinod B. AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale ….. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 12th September, 2025 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for all the Respondents. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondent No.2 has wrongly rejected a proposal for renewal of registration of the child care homes of the Petitioners under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is submitted that the said impugned order dated 28.12.2018 is based on a misinterpretation of the provisions of the said Act of 2015, particularly in the light of the admitted position on facts that the child care homes run by the Petitioners since 2005 and 2009 were duly registered under the earlier Act i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 2025:BHC-AUG:24489-DB ( 2 ) 926 wp 7948.25 of Children) Act, 2000. It is specifically submitted that applying the Maharashtra Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter Maharashtra Rules of 2018), would show that the Petitioners had a window of one year from 14.03.2018 to apply for and submit proposals for renewal of such registration of child care homes. Since the Petitioners admittedly submitted such proposals within the said period of time, the Respondent No.2 was bound to consider the same on its own merits. But, by the impugned order the Respondent No.2 has erroneously rejected the said proposal. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mother Teresa Balakashram V/s. State of Maharashtra (Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2022) passed in Writ Petition No.7821/2021 and connected petitions, as also order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.9674/2024 (Balaji Balsadan Ghatangri and Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr.). 3. On the other hand, the learned AGP submitted that the impugned order is justified for the reason that an advertisement was issued in the year 2018 inviting proposals for registration of child care homes under the Act of 2015, wherein District Nanded did not find mention and since the child care homes run by the Petitioners are located in Nanded, the proposals of the Petitioners could not have been considered. ( 3 ) 926 wp 7948.25 4. Apart from this, reliance was placed on a notice dated 03.05.2018 issued to various institutions including the Petitioners-herein calling upon them to submit proposals on or before 23.05.2018. Since the Petitioners failed to submit such proposals and they claim to have submitted the proposals after the time limit had expired, no relief can be granted in these petitions. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, we find that in the judgment of this Court in the case of Mother Teresa Balakashram (supra) the inter play between the provisions of the Act of 2000 and the Act of 2015 was considered and it was categorically held that child care homes registered under the Act of 2000 wee only required to seek renewal of registration within one year of bringing into force the Maharashtra Rules of 2018. In fact, in the order passed in the case of Balaji Balsadan Ghatangri and Anr. (supra), this Court relied upon the judgment of Mother Teresa Balakashram (supra) and directed the Respondents to consider the proposals of the Petitioners in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. A perusal of the provisions of the Act of 2000 and Act of 2015, particularly Section 41 of the Act of 2015 read with Maharashtra Rules of 2018 would show that all child care homes registered under the Act of 2000 would automatically stand registered under the Act of 2015 for a period of ( 4 ) 926 wp 7948.25 five years and renewal of registration would be necessary within a period of one year from bringing into force of the Maharashtra Rules of 2018. 7. The aforesaid position indisputably arises from the reasoning found in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Mother Teresa Balakashram (supra). It is an admitted position that the Maharashtra Rules of 2018 were brought into force on 14.03.2018. Hence, the period of one year within which the renewal of registration could be obtained, expired on 13.03.2019. In such a situation, we fail to understand how the Respondents can rely upon the notice dated 03.05.2018, whereby the Petitioners and other such institutions were mandatorily required to submit their proposals on or before 23.05.2018. Such an artificial timeline could not have been imposed by the Respondents when Maharashtra Rules of 2018 provided a window of one year from 14.03.2018 for obtaining such renewal of registration. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the Respondents that since the Petitioners failed to submit proposals on or before 23.05.2018, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners is found to be unsustainable. We also find that in the reply affidavit, Respondents have admitted that the Petitioners had indeed submitted proposals for both the care homes in the year 2018 itself for renewal of registration. Once this is found to be an undisputed fact, the Respondent No.2 could not have refused to consider the proposals on merits. ( 5 ) 926 wp 7948.25 8. We further find that the ostensible reason recorded in the impugned communication dated 28.12.2018, to the effect that the proposals of the Petitioners could not be considered as Nanded district was not mentioned in the subject advertisement, is also unsustainable for the reason that such advertisement calling for proposals would have no bearing on the proposals submitted by the Petitioners for renewal of registration of its child care homes that were already registered under the Act of 2000. Therefore, the said reason is also found to be unsustainable and the impugned communication deserves to be set aside. 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the proposals admittedly submitted by the Petitioners for renewal of registration of its two child care homes ought to be considered on their own merits by Respondent No.2. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the proposals submitted by the Petitioners for renewal of registration of its child care homes in District Nanded, on their own merits within a period of eight weeks from today. No extension of time shall be granted. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANISH PITALE, J.] mub