p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 27070 OF 2023 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sarvodaya Samiti, Koraput …. Petitioner -Versus- The Director, Odisha State Child Protection Society (OSCPS), W&CD Complex, Bhubaneswar & Others …. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Advocate, with M/s A. Mukherji, S.D. Ray, A. Mishra, S. Acharya, K. Banerjee, M. Wright, R.D.K. Dash, Advocates. For Opp. Parties: Mr. U.C. Behura, Addl. Government Advocate [OP Nos.1 to 6] Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI with Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel [O.P. No.7] CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 19.11.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- p. 2 PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J. “Every child born into this world brings a message that God is not yet discouraged of man” said Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941). Childhood is more than a chronological fact. It is a valuable time and stage of life, when a person is most susceptible to influence and vulnerable to psychological damage. This should prelude judgment in the making. Petitioner, a registered Child Care Institution, is knocking at the doors of the writ Court for assailing the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by O.P. No.1 whereby its claim for Grant-in-Aid for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 has been negatived on the ground that the proposal for sanction and release of fund has not been approved by the Project Approval Board, i.e., O.P. No.7. 2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukherji appearing with the Advocate on Record for the Petitioner seeks to falter the decision on the following grounds: (i) Petitioner-Institution has been running with the aid effective from 1982 to 2018 and therefore, abruptly that could not have been withheld/stopped, there being no reason or rhyme for the same. He draws attention of the Court to Chapter- V of „Vatsalya Scheme‟ in question wherein a procedure has p. 3 been prescribed for withholding, suspending or discontinuing the aid. (ii) Before the Co-ordinate Bench, the Government, having admitted the unsustainability of the impugned order, had undertaken to do the exercise de novo and accordingly the same having been done, vide order dated 06.07.2024, no relief has been yielded to the Petitioner. Mr. Mukherji adds that contents of each of the tabular columns in the order are faultsome and therefore, the same is liable to be struck down. (iii) The foundational fault of the OP-State is in recommending the case of Petitioner to the Central Govt. as a new Institution in contradistinction to the existing Institution and therefore a whole lot of problem arose. At least, the Board ought to have sought for clarification from the State as to whether the Institution in question is an existing entity or a new one, since material was available on record to demonstrate that it is an existing Institution. (iv) The Petitioner has a legitimate expectation by virtue of the long & consistent stand of the OPs in extending the aid under p. 4 the Scheme in question in the proportion of 60:30:10, i.e., Central Government, State Government & the Institution concerned, respectively. Therefore, abrupt stopping of aid is offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He also submits that the State Government has produced the letter correspondence, pursuant to Courts order dated 16.01.2024; when perused the same reveals a host of errors that become demonstrable infirmities. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is warranted. (v) Mr. Mukherji draws attention of the Court to the periodic reports filed by various authorities, including the District Collector, Additional District Collector & Additional District Judges in terms of the Policy Guidelines to the effect that the Institution has been running perfectly, and that it was in dire need of funds. In some of the reports, they have also mentioned about the resident children being happy. All these aspects have also not been looked into by the jurisdictional authorities while making the impugned orders. Page 5 of 22 3. After service of notice, Central Government and State Government, having entered appearance, their advocates have filed their counter affidavit by resisting the petition. (i) Learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the Central Government submits that since the Board did not recommend the case of Petitioner, his client‟s stand cannot be faltered. He also points out that a huge of sum of Rs.4.6 crore is lying with the State Government, and that it was specifically made clear that the same could be made use of without requiring any sanction, for the purpose for which the said funds have been placed at its hands. He also points out that to certain queries; the State did not come forward with the clarification or explanation and thus, the hands of his clients were tied. (ii) Learned AGA Mr. Behura appearing for the State and its officials resists the petition contending that the Grant-in-Aid is not a matter of justiciable right and therefore, petition is misconceived; disputed facts relating to the claim for money are involved in the petition and therefore, petitioner should be relegated to remedy of suit. The Petitioner, vide its letter dated p. 6 15.03.2018, had told that it was not willing to continue the Institution and therefore, arrangement should be made for rehabilitation of inmates. Accordingly, District Child Protection Officer, vide letter dated 04.03.2018, had agreed with the proposal and requested the Institution to retain the children for one more month and thereafter the accommodation, by way of rehabilitation, would be made. Because of above letter, no recommendation was made to the Central Government for allocation of the aid for the year 2018-19 & onwards. At no point of time, case of the Petitioner was treated as a new Institution. He also points out that the case of Petitioner was recommended for the year 2020-21 & onwards which the Central Government & OP No.7 had not favoured and therefore, no blame can be levied on State Government. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his contention, he relies Apex Court decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College1 and of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 9062 of 1992 (O&M) between 1 AIR 2021 SC 775 p. 7 S.R.P.A. Adarsh Bhartiya College, Pathankot v. The State of Punjab decided on 07.08.2014. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. Petitioner-Society has been registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it has been running a Child Care Institution with the aid from the State Government since 1982-83. Thereafter, the State Government promulgated revised Guidelines vide Resolution dated 04.03.2015. The petitioner-society came to be registered under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as provided under paragraph-ii in Chapter-II of the Scheme, in 2015. The Child Care Institution run by the petitioner-society has been maintaining the standards of care prescribed under notification dated 30.10.2014 and it follows the food safety guidelines issued by the Department from time to time. At no point of time, there is any complaint against this Institution, which had the permitted intake capacity of 50 children belonging to p. 8 downtrodden communities. Presently, it is having 25 inmates in the hostel. It is admitted at the Bar that the Central Government provides 60%, the State Government 30% and the Institution generates 10% of the funds required. It is also admitted that during a long period between 1982-83 & 2017-18, the aid has been provided to the petitioner-institution regularly and uninterruptedly. That itself creates a thick legitimate expectation, if not a justiciable right to have restoration of flow of funds by way of aid. Therefore, with no reason or rhyme, the flow of funds could not have been disrupted by the impugned orders. 4.2. The vehement contention of learned AGA Mr.Behura that the right to get the aid of the kind is not justiciable and that such a financial aid from the State is not a matter right at all, is a too broad a proposition to be accepted. Reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the petitioner is not before the Court for getting the State aid, ab inceptio. What he challenges is, the decision to disrupt the aid that was provided for about quarter century or so. Secondly, it is not the case of State Government that it has no funds at its disposal in favour of societies of the p. 9 kind. Learned panel counsel appearing for the Central Government draws attention of the Court to the minutes of Project Approval Board Meeting held on 12.11.2021 wherein paragraph-7reads as under:- “The State informed that the State has an unspent balance amounting to Rs.416.61 lakhs as on 01.04.2021, which may be revalidated for 2021-2022. PAB conveyed to the State that there is no need to revalidation of unspent balance lying with State Government during current FY 2021-2022, provided the unspent balance is being utilized for the purpose it was sanctioned during previous year.” Thirdly, the functioning of Institution & the state of its inmates have been periodically supervise by the jurisdictional District Collector, District Judge & Additional District Judge. Mr.Mukherjee took the Court through these reports, which are part of annexures wherein working of the Institution has been found satisfactory and that the children were very well being looked after. Fourthly, whatever procedural compliances were expected of the petitioner-society, the same could have been indicated with specificity and that has not been done. The action of the State and its instrumentalities has to be fair, just & p. 10 reasonable vide E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu2. Any arbitrary action in this regard runs the risk of invalidation in judicial review, which the constitutional Courts undertake. 4.3. The Vatsalya Scheme is broadly relatable to J.J. Act and the provisions of Articles 15(3) read with 39(e) of the Constitution of India. It is a matter of International Conventions too. The Apex Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India3, has observed as under:- 49. In a report submitted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, 40% of India's children have been declared to be vulnerable or experiencing difficult circumstances. They are entitled to special protection under Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 24 of the Constitution. The concerns of child and the paradigm of child rights have been addressed suitably in various international conventions and standards on child protection including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), 1985, the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990, the Hague Convention on Inter Country Adoption,1993. India has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. The Convention inter alia prescribes standards to be adhered by all state parties in securing the best interest of the child. 50. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the millennium development goals cannot be secured unless child protection is an integral part of programmes, strategies and plans for their achievement. The newly constituted Ministry of Women and Child Development has rightly remarked that child protection is an essential part of the country's strategy to place `Development of the child at the Centre of the 11th Plan'. The National Plan of 2 AIR 1974 SC 555 3 AIR 2011 SC 3361 p. 11 Action for Children articulates a rights agenda for the development of children. 51. Learned Solicitor General further submitted that the existing child protection mechanisms have to be first noticed. The delivery points however need to be strengthened. To review the delivery of these programmes, there must be nodal agencies. Points of responsibility have to be identified and strengthened. The programme for juvenile justice is to enable children in need of care and protection and those in conflict with law to be secured. The central governments provide financial assistance to the state governments/UT administrations for establishment and maintenance of various homes, salary of staff, food, and clothing for children in need of care and protection of juveniles in conflict with law. Financial assistance is based on proposals submitted by States on a 50:50 cost sharing basis.” 4.4. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990,4 provides for various measures, which the State parties have to take legislatively or otherwise. Article 24 of the said Convention injuncts that State Parties shall pursue full implementation of rights of the children in general and take appropriate measures in particular to diminish infant & child mortality, to ensure necessary medical assistance & health care to all children; to combat disease & malnutrition through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water. Article 51 of the Constitution directs that the State shall endeavor to inter alia, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one 4 G.A. Resolution 44/25. Page 12 of 22 another. Relying upon the said Article, Sikri C.J. in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala5 observed: “…. It seems to me that, in view of Article 51 of the directive principles, this Court must interpret language of the Constitution, if not intractable, which is after all a municipal law, in the light of the United Nations Charter and the solemn declaration subscribed to by India.” Therefore, it cannot be gainfully argued that the State aid under the scheme in question is not justiciable, more particularly when the paucity of funds is not an issue. All this was not a subject matter of consideration in Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College or S.R.P.A. Adarsh supra. Added, Grant-in-Aid to an educational institution which ordinarily is provided from the State funds is one thing and contributory financial aid under important child rights protection schemes, is another, although they are not poles asunder. The decisions cited relate to the educational institutions and not to the child care institutions of the kind and therefore, would not come to the rescue of State. It is well settled that a decision is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down in a given p. 13 5 (1973) 4 SCC 225 fact matrix, and not for all that which logically follows from what has been so laid down, said Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Letham6. 4.5. Mr. Behura submits that the problem began because of petitioner‟s letter dated 15.03.2018 wherein it expressed unwillingness to run the Institution in question. Let me examine the inner voice of this letter that was addressed to the Director, OSCPS, Women & Child Development Department. (i) The letter has the following text: “Sub: Request to shift the children from our CCI at Koraput & Burja Not willing to continue the programme from 1st April, 2018. Respected Sir, With reference to the subject mentioned above, I would like to inform you that the Sarvodaya Samiti has running Orphanage for 50 Children since 1981 at Koraput and Burja with the support from Women & Child Development, Govt. of Odisha but due to the following reasons we are not interested to continue the programme from 1st April, 2018. 1) We are not getting any kind of support from the DCPU & SPMU (OSCPS) for smooth running of the programme and for all round development of the Children staying in out Homes as designed in the Scheme. 2) The funds provided for food per child is Rs.46/- per day which is not sufficient for providing food to the children (age 6 [19O1] UKHL 2. Page 14 of 22 group 10-18 years) 5 times a day as per the menu provided by OSCPS. 3) The 10% contribution of the total programme including the salaries of the staff is quite high for our Organization and will not be able to contribute such amount for the programme. 4) The Grant-in-Aid is not released in time, earlier it was released quarterly basis by the department of women & child development before formation of OSCPS, till now we have not received the salaries of staff and other funds even we are at the end of the year (March). We therefore, request your to kindly give necessary instruction to the DCPO, Koraput to shift the 50 Children from our CCI at Koraput and Burja to other homes or take appropriate steps on or before 31st March, 2018, so that we will not continue from the next financial year 1st April, 2018 for which we shall thankful to you. ….” The District Child Protection Officer, vide reply dated 03.04.2018, said as under: “Sub: Regarding shifting rehabilitation of children of SAVODAYA Samit, Koraput. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I am inform you that it is not possible in our part to rehabilitate 50 nos of children within this short time period. Now we are trying to rehabilitate those children ins some TRW Schools and other Institution. But it will take some time. Therefore, I request you to keep those children for this month so that we will be able to rehabilitate them properly.” (ii) The submission of Mr. Behura that the above letter of the petitioner created the difficulty, is bit difficult to countenance for more than one reason: The said letter although had expressed p. 15 unwillingness to continue the Institution, that was not end of matter. The CDPO responded to the effect that the children should be accommodated for one more month. After the said period, no arrangement was made for rehabilitation of the children in terms of reply to the letter. In the meanwhile, petitioner sent another letter dated 30.04.2018 which expressed its difficulty in continuing the Institution unless the aid is provided. All these letters along with the reply of the Director, OSCPS have been wrongly construed diversing their context & intent. The authorities were swayed away by a few sentences in the letters without gathering their true spirit. Had the authorities rehabilitated the children in terms of their own assurance, arguably the contention of Mr.Behura could have gained acceptance. However, that was not to be. 4.6. It is noteworthy that on 25.06.2024, learned AGA had fairly conceded before Co-ordinate Court that the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 was defective and that a fresh decision would be taken. (i) The above said order reads as under:- p. 16 “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate fairly contended that the order dt.07.08.2023 which is impugned in the present Writ Petition has not been passed in compliance to the earlier order passed by this Court on 17.05.2023 in WP(C ) No.6925 of 2020. 4. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate contended that in compliance to the order dt.17.05.2023, a fresh order will be passed by 5th July, 2024 by giving opportunity to the Petitioner 5. Considering the submission of learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, list this matter on 08.07.2024. Opp. Party No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to appear before Opp. Party No.1 on 03.07.2024 for compliance…” Accordingly, the decision was made on 06.07.2024 by the jurisdictional opposite parties turning down claim of the petitioner for Grant-in-Aid inter alia on the ground that the case was not recommended by the State Government, which is the implementing agency. (ii) After hearing the parties, another Co-ordinate Judge, vide order dated 16.01.2025, observed as under:- “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Considering the stand taken in order dt.06.07.2024 so passed pursuant to the order dt.25.06.2024 of this Court, it is found that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid for the year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, though has been recommended to the p. 17 Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development vide different letters, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India contended that no such recommendation was ever received to consider the claim of the Petitioner. 4. Considering the same, this Court directs learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to produce the copies of letters so indicated in Clause-5(iv) 5(v) of order dt. 06.07.2024 on the next date. 5. Learned Central Govt. Counsel is also directed to file a fresh affidavit indicating therein that no such proposal was ever received as indicated in order dt.06.07.2024...” Accordingly, the papers were filed by the State Government and that is how the file became bulky at the hands of this Court. After turning every page of the file, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr.Mukherjee that the State and its Authorities committed a gross error in recommending the case of petitioner not as an existing Institution but as a new Institution. It hardly needs to be stated that the parameters of consideration for fresh grant much differ from those for the extension of grant. I repeat that the case of petitioner is not even for the extension of grant but against disruption of flow of long extended contributory aid, on demonstrably wrong reasons. (iii) As already mentioned above, there is absolutely no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner. No aid, once sanctioned, can be rescinded or suspended, save by following p. 18 the procedure prescribed under paragraph-5 of Vatslya Scheme, which inter alia includes an opportunity of hearing & proven misconduct. It is not the case of the opposite parties that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-society or that there is any culpable conduct attributable to it. No reasonable person in the arm chair of the authorities would have discontinued the aid, for the discernable reasons from the record, more particularly when the jurisdictional authorities, after due periodic supervision, had found the conduct & proceeding of the Institution perfectly adequate. They had even recommended continuation of the aid. 4.7. The stand of the Central Government and also opposite party no.7 in particular that there was no recommendation from the State Authorities and therefore, the aid has been discontinued is also not fully correct: (i) The letter dated 07.03.2020 addressed by the Additional Director, OSCPS was nothing but the recommendatory proposal for sanctioning of the financial aid for the year 2020-2021. The same has the following texts: p. 19 “Subject: Submission of Proposal under CPS for the financial year 2020-21. Madam, In inviting reference to the subject cited above, I am to submit herewith the proposal under Child Protection Services for the financial year 2020-21 in the prescribed format for kind consideration. You are requested to consider and approve the proposal and same may be forwarded to Finance Department of Govt. of Odisha for financial concurrence for its onward transmission to MWCD, New Delhi. Encl: as above…” (ii) Of course, the learned Senior Panel Counsel apart from telling the Court about the unutilized amount of Rs. 416.00 lakh earmarked for the project in question, draws attention to paragraph-7 in the additional affidavit filed on 13.10.2025, which reads as under:- “7. That it is humbly submitted that the State of Odisha leteron recommended the name of the Petitioner Organisation in the financial year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023- 24. However, the name of the Petitioner was not approved by the PAB for the said financial years. In this respect, it is submitted here that the details of the financial years 2020- 21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 were inadvertently not mentioned in the earlier counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.7 and the Opposite Party No.7 seeks unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court for this inadvertent lapses which is neither willful, nor deliberate on the part of this Opp. Party.” (iii) The Panel Counsel also draws attention of the Court to Paragraph-5 of the Minutes of Supplementary Project Approval p. 20 Board Meeting dated 15.10.2020 at Annexure-A/7 series, one of which has the following text: “5. PAB noted that State has requested 110 new NGO run Children Homes, 2 new Government run Observation cum Special Homes, 1 new Government run Place of Safety, 1 new Government run Specialized Adoption Agency, 5 new NGO run SAAs and 20 new NGO run Open Shelters. PAB observed that the State has requested a large number of CCIs, however, as per the daily reports (14.0520) submitted by State Government, 9076 children were residing in 244 CCIs, which indicates underutilization of existing capacity of the CCIs in State. PAB advised the State to review the need for CCIs vis-à-vis number of children requiring Institutional care in the State. The review is imperative especially in the light of restoration of a large number of Children in the aftermath of COVID 19. It was also conveyed to the State that the primary responsibility of taking care of vulnerable children lies with the State Government and Central Government is only assisting the State Government to fill the gap in Child Protection services.” 4.8. The above stand of the Central Government is more than fair and needs to be appreciated. Whatever the Central Government or opposite party no.7 had suggested & sought for, the State & its officials were duty bound to accomplish so that the huge unutilized money in crores could have been put to the fructification of the avowed purpose by making allocation to Institutions of the kind, which have been doing yeoman service. A perusal of the bulky papers of the petition gives an impression that the State and its officials did not treat the claim of p. 21 petitioner-society by following a fair standard procedure and due deference. Mr.Mukherjee is right that once it is demonstrated that the State had recommended the case of petitioner for extension of the aid, of course with the arguable infirmities as mentioned above and the Central Government is ready and willing to make the grant available by passing the formal orders keeping in view unutilized money of Rs.416.61 lakhs, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for consideration afresh. Added to this, the petition at hand is a second round litigation, the first having been fought in W.P.(C) No.6925 of 2020 disposed off on 17.05.2023. Remand after remand shakes the confidence of scrupulous litigants. The power of Writ Courts is coextensive with that of the authorities whose proceedings are put in judicial review. There is sufficient material loaded to the record not only for invalidating the impugned order but also for according the positive relief by way of direction to continue the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner, of course subject to usual compliances. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders dated p. 22 07.08.2023 at Annexure-1 and 06.07.2024 at Annexure-25 coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to sanction & release the Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner for the period 2019-20 & onwards within a period of three months, failing which delay would carry interest @ 9% per annum. It hardly needs to be stated that it is open to OP No.1 to solicit any information from the side of Petitioner or from such other Department as required for accomplishing the mandate scripted above. The Petitioner and other Departments shall fully cooperate in accomplishing it. Costs reluctantly made easy. This Court places on record its appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by its Law Clerk-cum- Research Assistant, Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief. Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. Dixit Krishna Shripad Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th November, 2025/Amit Designation: Secretary