ORDER 1.Permission to file SLP allowed. 2.Leave granted in all the matters. 3. The order dated 8-8-2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is challenged before us in these appeals. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for CARA as also counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The matter relates to the adoption of children who are either abandoned or relinquished by their biological parents. Pursuant to this Courts decision in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of Indial and subsequent decisions on related subjects, the Government of India issued detailed guidelines and procedures in the matter of adoption of children. To control and supervise the adoption of children, there exists a regulatory agency, known as the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA). CARA gives noobjection certificates to various voluntary organizations who are licensed by it to process the adoption of abandoned/relinquished children. There is also a Voluntary Coordinating Agency (VCA) in each State. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, it seems that VCA is working under the Department of Women Development and Child Welfare. Indian parents, who intend to adopt children can register themselves with various voluntary organizations licensed by CARA, as also with VCA. 4. The first respondent herein is said to be a social activist and the second respondent is an Assistant Professor in a university. It appears that Respondents 1 and 2 alleged that there were certain irregularities in the matter of adoption of children and that the various voluntary organizations, who are acting as placement agencies have violated certain procedures prescribed by the Government. The main allegation against these organizations is that no bona fide attempt is being made to ensure that the children are adopted by Indian parents and that these organizations were usually interested in ensuring that the children are adopted by foreign parents. As per the guidelines and the decision of this Court in L.K. Pandey Case1preference has to be given to Indian parents for adoption. It is also alleged by these respondents that these voluntary organizations concocted certain documents to make it appear that there are no Indian parents who are willing to adopt these children. As per the guidelines and the decision of this Court in L.K. Pandey Case1preference has to be given to Indian parents for adoption. It is also alleged by these respondents that these voluntary organizations concocted certain documents to make it appear that there are no Indian parents who are willing to adopt these children. Against the final orders passed by the Family Court in the matter of adoption, the said respondents have filed appeals before the High Court with an application to grant leave and in some matters they alleged that some of the voluntary organizations did not even possess any valid licence. Various other objections have also been raised in the appeals preferred by these respondents before the High Court. The appellants herein have also filed some appeals before the High Court in cases where the Family Court declined permission for inter-country adoption and when all these appeals came up for consideration, the following order was passed by the High Court in each case pending further hearing of the cases. The relevant operative portion of the same reads as follows: "The Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, shall send registered notices to all the parents who intend to take the abandoned or relinquished female children wherever they are, including the Tender Loving Care Centre, and find out whether they are willing to adopt any of the children, including the children for whom CARA has given the NOC for inter-country adoption. The above process has to be completed by 19-8-2002." 5. The counsel for the appellants submitted that this order was passed in an appeal preferred against the order of the Family Court, Hyderabad, in OP No. 908 of 2001 and that the appellant in the civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 16316 of 2002 was not a party in the said OP No. 908 of 2001. It is further submitted that as a general order has been passed by the High Court, the appellants are not able to proceed with the adoption process even in cases where a no-objection certificate has been granted by CARA and the Family Court has granted permission to send the children abroad to foreign parents. It is further submitted that as a general order has been passed by the High Court, the appellants are not able to proceed with the adoption process even in cases where a no-objection certificate has been granted by CARA and the Family Court has granted permission to send the children abroad to foreign parents. It is also submitted by the appellants that in view of the impugned order the foreign parents are not able to adopt children even in cases where there are no allegations or evidence of any illegality or procedural violations. 6. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that all the appeals filed by the respondents and the appeals preferred by the appellants were considered and all the parties were heard and that a common order was passed. On a perusal of the copy of the order produced in these proceedings, it seems that in all the matters, reference is made only to OP No. 908 of 2001 and it may be that the same cause-title is shown in all the orders instead of giving separate cause-titles in respect of orders passed in each case. We assume that a common and identical order has been passed in all the matters. 7. It is submitted by the appellants that by passing the impugned order the High Court has dealt with various objections together and if that procedure is adopted, the adoptions now pending with the authorities or the courts may get delayed. It is submitted that in view of the general order passed by the High Court, the voluntary organizations are not in a position to proceed further in the matter of adoption even in cases where there are no objections. On the other hand, counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 contended that they have raised specific allegations in respect of certain adoptions proposed by these appellants and other voluntary organizations. Counsel for CARA submitted that certain irregularities have been noticed even in cases where they have given no-objection certificates earlier and such cases may have to be reviewed. 8. Having regard to the nature of the objections raised by the respondents, we feel it just and proper that the High Court may take up each case separately for hearing and consider whether objections raised therein are valid or not and then pass appropriate orders. 8. Having regard to the nature of the objections raised by the respondents, we feel it just and proper that the High Court may take up each case separately for hearing and consider whether objections raised therein are valid or not and then pass appropriate orders. If a general order is passed without reference to the merits of each case, it may affect and delay the culmination of the process of adoption even in genuine cases which are cleared by CARA and the Family Court. The High Court is requested to consider and hear each appeal separately along with the objections raised therein by the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The adoptions proposed in the main matter are already delayed and, therefore, the High Court may dispose of that matter early so that the children abandoned/relinquished by their natural parents may get care, love and affection from their adoptive parents. The parties would be at liberty to raise all objections and contentions before the High Court. 9. Some arguments were raised as regards the locus standi of Respondents 1 and 2 herein to file appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the impleadment of the said respondents in the proceedings before the Family Court. Certain revisions are said to be pending against the impleadment orders. We are not inclined to go into these appeals as the High Court is seized of the appeals and revisions and the scope of these appeals is rather limited. 10. Subject to the foregoing observations, the appeals are disposed of without any order as to costs.