AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed in OP SR No. 7014 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing a petition filed under Section 9 (4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking permission to give the minor child - Yashoda born on 23. 11. 2000 in adoption to the respondents 2 and 37 petitioners 2 and 3. The appellant is the society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Act, 1350 Fasli. The society is running an Orphanage and has got facilities for maintenance and looking after the orphans who are abandoned by the Police and the society is interested in the welfare of the minor child and wishes that she should be adopted by good parents. According to the appellant, the natural parents of the minor child due to their financial position have executed relinquishment deed in respect of the child and since then, the child is in the care and custody of the appellant. The respondents 2 and 3 who are petitioners 2 and 3 approached the appellant with a request to permit them to adopt the child from the Orphanage and have expressed their willingness to adopt the minor child -Yashoda for which the appellant agreed and moved an O. P. before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. ( 2 ) AN objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the petition. It was argued that the institution obtained a certificate of recognition from Central Adoption Resource Agency (hereinafter called as "cara") and therefore the petition is maintainable. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant has not produced any certificate from the Board constituted by the Government and that even though the appellant applied for such a certificate, no certificate had been granted so far. ( 3 ) FURTHER as per the provisions of Section 11 (2) (vii), relinquishment of child by biological parents on family grounds of poverty, number of children, unwanted girl-child will not be permitted. In the present case, by the date filing of the petition, G. O. Ms. No. 16, dated 18. 4. ( 3 ) FURTHER as per the provisions of Section 11 (2) (vii), relinquishment of child by biological parents on family grounds of poverty, number of children, unwanted girl-child will not be permitted. In the present case, by the date filing of the petition, G. O. Ms. No. 16, dated 18. 4. 2001 has come into force and it applies to all the institutions and in view of the fact that relinquishment of child by biological parents on the grounds of family poverty and unwanted child, is prohibited, the Court cannot give consent for the adoption. For the above reasons, the learned Chief Judge rejected the Original Petition as not maintainable. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, the first petitioner in OP SR preferred the above appeal in this Court. It is submitted by Smt. S. Vani, learned Counsel for the appellant that the original petition under Section 9 (4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act seeking leave of the Court to give the child in adoption to the respondents 2 and 3 was filed on 23. 4. 2001 and in the meanwhile, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification banning relinquishment of children by biological parents under G. O. Ms. No. 16 of 2001 dated 18. 4. 2001 which was published in the newspapers on 23. 4. 2001. Reliance was placed on the said G. O. and in particular, Clause 11 (c) (xii) which reads thus:"no institution registered under societies Registration Act, 1860 is permitted to procure detain adopt children and if it is noticed, the Director or Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency of Women Development and Child Welfare Department shall have the power to take the children into possession, sea! the premises and prosecute such institutions in a Court of law. Provided that the institutions who have been issued licence given and recognition accorded shall alone be permitted to keep the children subject to condition and rules specified" ( 5 ) IT is further submitted that the appellant society applied for recognition under the said G. O. on 4. 5. 2001 at R. R. District and on 29. 5. Provided that the institutions who have been issued licence given and recognition accorded shall alone be permitted to keep the children subject to condition and rules specified" ( 5 ) IT is further submitted that the appellant society applied for recognition under the said G. O. on 4. 5. 2001 at R. R. District and on 29. 5. 2001 at Hyderabad and also brought to the notice of the Court that an application for recognition was made by the appellant under the provisions of the Orphanages and other Charitable Institutions (Control and Supervision) Act in 1960 and paid the requisite fee for the same. But however, the demand draft remitted by them was returned. Hence, the recognition is deemed to have been accorded in favour of the appellant. It is further argued that the child in question was relinquished to the appellant before the advent of G. O. 16 and hence the ban imposed in the said G. O. cannot be said to have any operation in respect of the said child. The Court below has failed to appreciate that the G. O. 16 has no retrospective operation and hence it is not applicable to the case of the appellant. It is further submitted that the Rule (xii) of G. O. 16 exempts institutions with recognition accorded or licence granted from its purview and hence, the appellant being an institution recognized by CARA does not require a recognition certificate under Rule 11 (1) of the A. P. Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Rules, 1999. It is further submitted that the Board as contemplated under G. O. 16 of 2001 was not constituted either by the date of filing of the O. P. or on the date of passing of the impugned order and that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant society has applied for licence way back in the year 1999 along with the requisite fee and that the relinquishment deed in the present case is much prior to the issuance of the G. O. ( 6 ) AN affidavit was filed by the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department. It is submitted that under Section 29 of the Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 which governs the licensing and regulation of Orphanages, the State Government has initially issued G. O. 67 formulating the rules. It is submitted that under Section 29 of the Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 which governs the licensing and regulation of Orphanages, the State Government has initially issued G. O. 67 formulating the rules. On 18. 4. 2001, the Government has issued a fresh set of rules in supersession of the earlier rules vide G. O. 16 and these rules inter alia provide for issuance of a certificate of recognition to persons or institutions desiring to make, maintain or conduct such Homes. The appellant obtained certificate of recognition from the CARA. But the said certificate has expired on 5. 10. 2001 and has not been renewed. The appellant has also filed several applications before the Family Court, Hyderabad. The department simultaneously referred the relinquishment deeds in respect of children pending before the Court to CB CID for enquiring into the genuineness of the relinquishment for all such cases of adoption referred to the Department by the Court before filing the counters. The report is adverse to the Organisation. It is further submitted in the enquiry report that the records relating to the relinquishment of children allegedly executed by the natural parents are fabricated and false. The organization applied for certificate of recognition and licence for in-country adoption and the certificate of recognition was issued earlier by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (CARA), Government of India from 6. 10. 2000 to 5. 10. 2001. The Government after careful examination of facts and circumstances and in fight of clear violations of adoption guidelines, relinquishment provisions and adoption rules by the said Agency has decided not to recommend renewal of licence to the said organization and that the same was communicated to CARA. Farther CARA has informed to the Government on 6. 10. 2001 enclosing a copy of the telegram addressed to the St. Theressa s Tender Loving Care Home stating that the recognition of the said Organisation has not been renewed after 5/10/2001. ( 7 ) WE have also heard Ms. J. Vijayalakshmi, Government Pleader representing the Advocate- General and also perused the G. O. 16 and other letters and correspondence placed before us by the learned Advocate-General. ( 8 ) THE statute providing for control and supervision of Orphanages and other Charitable institutions is in existence from 1960. However, the State Government framed the rules only on 18. 4. J. Vijayalakshmi, Government Pleader representing the Advocate- General and also perused the G. O. 16 and other letters and correspondence placed before us by the learned Advocate-General. ( 8 ) THE statute providing for control and supervision of Orphanages and other Charitable institutions is in existence from 1960. However, the State Government framed the rules only on 18. 4. 2001 vide G. O. 16 of 2001. Prior to the issuance of the G. O. , there was no rule requiring the appellant s institution or any other Institution to obtain any recognition from any authority or agency of the State Government. The appellant institution was holding a valid licence issued by CARA for the purpose of processing the cases of in-country and inter-country adoption of children. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that all the children relinquished by biological parents prior to 18. 4. 2001 to the appellant s institution, were left at the doorstep of their institution by them either due to social stigma in the case of unwed mothers or on account of poverty of the biological parents and that the chances of tracing the biological parents are remote because, the said parents do not leave their trail due to several social and other factors. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the very enquiry itself in the absence of any specific complaints against the appellant institution is not warranted. It is the specific case of the appellant that their institution never indulged in any irregularity and has not violated any rule and that the public outcry is not against the appellant s institution. It is therefore their specific case that the Government has never conducted any inspection in the past several years even after the outbreak of major scam in the year 1999. As such the Government is not in a position to distinguish the institutions like that of the appellant with other institutions and individuals. It is specifically mentioned that the appellant s institution has not forged or fabricated any relinquishment deeds as alleged and to the best of their knowledge, the children in their custody were relinquished voluntarily, which is born out from the fact that no claims have been received from the biological parents of the children inspite of publications made by the Government. ( 9 ) AN argument was advanced by the learned Government Pleader that they came to know through the correspondence between the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the District Collector that seven incidents of the sale of female infants from thunders of Chandampet and Deverkonda and that all the infants were sold to the appellant institution for Rs. 5,000. 00 to Rs. 10,000. 00 for each infant. This submission was specifically denied by the appellant. It is submitted by the appellant that the report which dates back to 1999 does not concern to the appellant institution and discloses none of the persons stated about giving and taking of any money by the appellant s institution. That apart the said Report is not shown to have made any enquiry with participation of the appellant s institution and hence the findings of the said report are not binding on the appellant herein. Therefore, it is contended that the correspondence of the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the District Collector is baseless and does not disclose any thing against the appellant institution. An application is made by the appellant for certificate of recognition and licence for in-country adoption with the State Government in pursuance of the issuance of G. O. 16. The CARA has renewed the licence of the appellant from 6. 10. 2000 to 5. 10. 2001. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the department that after careful examination of the alleged facts and circumstances and in the light of the alleged violations of the adoption guidelines, relinquishment provisions and adoption rules by the appellant institution, the Government has decided not to recommend renewal of the licence to the appellant institution. It is stated that the Government has not recommended anything to the CARA in the specified time of two months from the date of application for renewal made by the appellant organization. It is also submitted that the appellant organization is entitled to process the cases where no objections were already given by CARA. The appellant institution was holding a valid licence from the Central Government till 5. 11. 2001. It is also submitted that the appellant organization is entitled to process the cases where no objections were already given by CARA. The appellant institution was holding a valid licence from the Central Government till 5. 11. 2001. It is specifically submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no licence is required for processing the cases of in-country adoption it is also brought to our notice about the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed in the case of inter-country adoptions before the Family Court, wherein the Government has categorically contended that the G. O. 16 does not apply to the children relinquished before 18. 4. 2001. As such it is argued that the Government is precluded from stating otherwise in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant is not aware of the constitution of the Board or its decision or the rejection of application for recognition and that no decision of the Board is communicated to the appellant herein as alleged and if communicated, the appellant herein has the right to appeal. Concluding the argument, it is submitted that the Government which is allowing inter-country adoptions without any hindrance is not justified in taking a stand against in-country adoptions. ( 10 ) THE question in the present case is whether a child relinquished prior to 18. 4. 2001 is covered by G. O. 16 and whether an institution having licence of CARA requires a further recognition under the said G. O. ( 11 ) THE factual statement raised in the affidavit and argued in the appeal requires reconsideration by the Court below. As already noticed, the Court below rejected the original petition on the grounds of maintainability and that the appellant has not produced any certificate of recognition from the Board. The learned Chief Judge shall reconsider the entire issue afresh in the light of the submissions of the counsel and also the observations made by us in the judgment, after giving notice to the Director of Women and Child Welfare. The order under appeal is set aside. The C. M. A. is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judge for fresh consideration accordingly.