ORDER INTRODUCTION St. Theresa's Tender Loving Care Home (hereafter called, TLH) filed instant writ petition aggrieved by an order of Chairperson, Board of Control and Supervision of Homes, O/0 the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare (first respondent herein) (hereafter called, the Director), whereby and where under application of TLH for issue of recognition certificate was rejected. Such a certificate is required under Andhra Pradesh Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Rules, 2001 (Orphanage Rules, for brevity) as well as Andhra Pradesh Women's and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Rules, 2001 (Institution Rules, for brevity) for acting as adoption agency under G.0.Ms.No.16, dated 18-04-2001. The recognition was rejected on the ground that TLH violated Rules of adoption and committed irregularities in procuring children and arranging adoption of them to foster parents. The challenge is based mainly on the ground that TLH being an organization of religious congregation statedly handled all adoptions in 'rule-abidingmanner' and impugned order was issued ignoring relevant facts and circumstances without applying mind. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 2. The factual background is as follows: Society of Jesus Mary Joseph (SJMJ) is an international organization. It is involved in social welfare and community development activities. Out of three provinces, Hyderabad province is the biggest and it covers number of States. In Andhra Pradesh, they run schools for girls, and tribal children. They run hospitals. They also run shelter homes for street children. SJMJ is registered as St. Theresa Convent Society and is running hospital in the same name. It also runs orphanages. TLH is one such orphanage in existence for long time. 3. The Society obtained certificate of recognition (CoR) from Central Adoptions Resource Agency (CARA, for brevity), third respondent herein, in 1997, for a period of three years. Thereafter the recognition/ licence extended from 06-10-2000 to 05-10-2001. By virtue of such recognition, TLH is authorized to take up in-country and inter-country adoptions. After obtaining CARA recognition statedly TLH was successful in finding placement to children and it was instrumental in bringing happiness to several childless couples in India and abroad. TLH receives children at its doorsteps brought by biological parents or unwed mothers intending to relinquish children due to poverty or due to social stigma. They leave children with a hope that children sired by them find a home. The petitioner makes preliminary enquiry. They counsel biological parents. TLH receives children at its doorsteps brought by biological parents or unwed mothers intending to relinquish children due to poverty or due to social stigma. They leave children with a hope that children sired by them find a home. The petitioner makes preliminary enquiry. They counsel biological parents. They are informed that they have right to take back the children within two months from the date of leaving a child at TLH. They are also informed that the relinquished child would be adopted by Indian or foreign parents. After such counseling, TLH would obtain relinquishment deed executed in the presence of witnesses. Though this ideal procedure is adopted, trouble starts when at every step referred to hereinabove, truth takes back seat. 4. TLH is run by Nuns, who rigidly and strictly adhere to a life of celibacy, owe, prayer and service to humanity with altruism of highest order. TLH alleges that due to lack of exposure to external world, these Nuns have no opportunity of cross-check identity of persons who bring children or to verify whether persons are real biological parents or not. They go by trust and belief. Petitioner asserts that children were delivered to TLH by genuine biological parents who want to relinquish an unwanted child. As admitted by petitioner, procedure for receiving child is not foolproof and there is no other procedure laid down by State Government or the Board of Control and Supervision of Homes (the Board, for brevity). TLH has handled more than 50% of cases in country adoptions by giving children to adoptive parents including Government employees, businessmen, lawyers, police officers etc. Simultaneously if the children are rejected for in-country adoption, petitioner processed those cases for inter-country adoption. As per its guidelines and also the Judgment in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India1, the petitioner is submitting quarterly/half-yearly progress reports with regard to the children who were given in adoption outside India. 5. In 1999, the involvement of unscrupulous elements in children trade came to light. The officials conducted raids on several institutions and rescued children, who were kept in State Home for children. Criminal Investigation Department (CID) conducted enquiry and gave a clean chit to petitioner. TLH, as requested by respondents 2 and 3 processed as many as twenty-five cases of rescued children for adoption to foreign nationals wherever it was proposed prior to the raids. Criminal Investigation Department (CID) conducted enquiry and gave a clean chit to petitioner. TLH, as requested by respondents 2 and 3 processed as many as twenty-five cases of rescued children for adoption to foreign nationals wherever it was proposed prior to the raids. Again in February/March 2001, there was another adoption scam. Officials of third respondent conducted joint inspection of several orphanages. The records of TLH were checked, adoptive parents were interrogated and no anomalies were pointed out. A preliminary report of joint inspection was drawn up alleging that some of the receipts by petitioner society are not reflected in the cashbook. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation. After considering explanation, third respondent was satisfied and no questions were raised, but at the instance of second respondent, allegations of misappropriation running into several lakhs of dollars were publicized. The petitioner then forwarded a copy of explanation/clarification given by petitioner to third respondent, to second respondent. 6. The second respondent issued two notices on 22-05-2001 and 26-05-2001 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why cancellation of licence should not be recommended to third respondent. An explanation was submitted. Third respondent then sent a communication dated 13-06-2001 informing the petitioner that State Government recommended for cancellation of licence and petitioner was asked to show cause as to why recognition should not be withdrawn for violating Section 4.16 of the Revised Guidelines. The petitioner sent reply. While action was pending before third respondent, petitioner applied for renewal of CoR with effect from 05-10-2001. The same was not processed, but third respondent gave permission to continue processing adoption of those children for whom third respondent issued 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) during subsistence of licence. In the meanwhile, Government issued Memo No.9629/P2J2000, dated 24-11-2001 rejecting recognition certificate to TLH under Orphanage Rules and also rejected licence for doing adoption under Institution Rules, the petitioner then filed W.P.No. 1884 of 2002 challenging the Government memo. While the same was pending, first respondent passed impugned order, dated 01-02-2002 informing the decision of Board to reject the request of petitioner for issue of CoR under Orphanage Rules and Institution Rules. 7. The Chairperson of first respondent filed counter affidavit. The allegations and averments in brief are as follows. Petitioner is not recognized as fit institution to keep abandoned children under Section 10(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2001. 7. The Chairperson of first respondent filed counter affidavit. The allegations and averments in brief are as follows. Petitioner is not recognized as fit institution to keep abandoned children under Section 10(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2001. It is not known how the petitioner obtained recognition from CARA in 1997 and as the recognition expired on 05-10-2001, there is no valid licence. Petitioner is not recognized institution under Orphanage Act. The petitioner was found purchasing children from vulnerable Lambada community people through agents. In 1999, Superintendent of Police (SP), Nalgonda, found that during September/October 1998 till March 1999, seven female infants were sold to TLH by Tanda tribals within the limits of Chandrayanpet and Devarakonda Police Sub Division by paying Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per child. During investigation, it was found that petitioner is not maintaining proper records and fabricated false documents including relinquishment deeds in fictitious names. In another case, petitioner was buying an infant brought by Lambada man for Rs.4,000/- at Imlibun Bus Station, Hyderabad, and she was arrested. While denying the allegations made by petitioner as to how the children are brought to doorsteps of TLH, it is alleged that petitioner violated various guidelines laid down in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (1 supra) and guidelines issued by third respondent. Petitioner failed to produce relinquishment deeds and even some deeds submitted by TLH were found to be fabricated false documents, for violating CARA Rules, case NoA57 of 2001 of P.S., S.R. Nagar, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 341 was registered. 8. In March/April 2001, officials of respondents 1 and 3 inspected, among others, TLH, where children of same ethnic background were found. During enquiry, it was noticed that parents and unwed mothers do not come to petitioner to surrender child. Instead, agents procure children from different parts of the State, especially, Nalgonda District. During inspection, petitioner did not produce records and refused to give information. They processed intercountry adoptions only for financial gains. Therefore, notices were issued to petitioner on 22-05-2001 and 26-05-2001, but petitioner did not give any reply. The allegation that petitioner regularly furnished quarterly information is denied; Director issued two letters on 22-05-2001 and 26-05-2001 informing the grounds on which certificate of recognition was refused and explanation was called for before passing impugned order. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 9. Therefore, notices were issued to petitioner on 22-05-2001 and 26-05-2001, but petitioner did not give any reply. The allegation that petitioner regularly furnished quarterly information is denied; Director issued two letters on 22-05-2001 and 26-05-2001 informing the grounds on which certificate of recognition was refused and explanation was called for before passing impugned order. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 9. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Department of Women Development and Child Welfare made submissions in tune with pleadings. Learned counsel for petitioner also made submissions with reference to contents of the additional affidavit filed in the Court on 04-11-2008. A reference is made to them at appropriate place. 10. Whether impugned order suffers from impropriety or procedural irregularity is the first question to be addressed. This has become necessary because learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submits that first respondent while passing impugned order did not consider the explanation submitted by petitioner and that the impugned order was passed without application of mind. The sequence of events preceding impugned order would reveal that there was inspection of TLH in 1999. Petitioner was given a clean chit. Again in February/March 2001, there was inspection. A preliminary Joint Inspection Report was submitted pointing certain irregularities like misappropriation. Based on these, Director issued two notices on 22-05-2001 and 26-05-2001. Petitioner submitted explanation on 28-05-2001. In that connection, CARA sent a communication, dated 13-06-2001 informing that the State Government recommended to cancel licence and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why recognition should not be withdrawn for violating Section 4.16 of the Revised Guidelines. The petitioner sent a reply on 21-06-2001. While the matter was pending, petitioner applied to second respondent for renewal of CoR, which was rejected by memo of the second respondent, dated 24-11-2005. This was challenged in a writ petition. While the same is pending, the impugned letter was issued by first respondent informing the decision of the Board to reject the request of petitioner for issue of CoR under Orphanage Rules. The impugned letter nowhere refers to explanation submitted by petitioner to the Director or to CARA pursuant to their notice, dated 13-06-2001. A copy of the reply, dated 21-06-2001 is annexed to the writ petition. It is addressed to Joint Director of CARA. The impugned letter nowhere refers to explanation submitted by petitioner to the Director or to CARA pursuant to their notice, dated 13-06-2001. A copy of the reply, dated 21-06-2001 is annexed to the writ petition. It is addressed to Joint Director of CARA. A letter, dated 28-05-2001 of Sister Teresa Marie addressed to the Director, Women Development, who is also a party to the writ petition, is by way of interim reply and at no point of time petitioner submitted any detailed explanation. During the relevant time - as can be seen from the counter affidavit; there was a hue and cry about the role of NGOs in illegal adoptions. Presumably, for this reason, the Director and CARA initiated action simultaneously probably without proper coordination, which resulted in one authority issuing a show cause and another authority passing an order rejecting request for CoR and yet another authority informing the said decision of the Government. In anxiety to abate illegal activities, the procedure contemplated appears to have been ignored. This becomes clear by a brief reference to two relevant enactments and Rules made thereunder. RELEVANT STATUTE LAW. 11. Women's and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 105 of 1956) (hereafter called, the Institutions Act) is Legislation to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 39 of Constitution of India. It is intended to protect women and children from exploitation and to regulate and licence orphanages and other institutions caring for women, and children under eighteen years of age. The Act has come into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 20-02-1992. Section 3 thereof prohibits a person from establishing or maintaining any institution for the reception, care, protection and welfare of women and children, without obtaining a licence stated under the Act. Sections 4 to 8 deal with grant and revocation of licence. Section 9 is penalty clause. Any contravention of provisions of the Institutions Act or the Rules made there under is punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto three months or with fine or with both. Section 11 empowers State Government to make Rules. In exercise of their powers under Section 11 (1), State of Andhra Pradesh promulgated Institution Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 11-05-2001. Any contravention of provisions of the Institutions Act or the Rules made there under is punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto three months or with fine or with both. Section 11 empowers State Government to make Rules. In exercise of their powers under Section 11 (1), State of Andhra Pradesh promulgated Institution Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 11-05-2001. Rules, 3, 4, 7 to 15 contain the procedure for making application for issue of licence, for maintenance of institution, the constitution of District Advisory Committee, the grant of licence by the said Committee, refusal/ revocation of licence, suspension and cancellation of licence etc. Rule 5 prescribes eligibility for establishment of institution. The criteria are - (a) the institution shall be registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860; (b) shall furnish social status, activity and reputation of Members of Managing Committee; (c) shall provide suitable accommodation facilities and sanitary conditions; (d) accommodation shall have good lighting, ventilation etc; (e) shall furnish copies of Bye-laws of the institution; (f) shall furnish copies of audited statements of accounts for the past three years; and (g) shall furnish financial sources for running the institution. 12. Rule 6 of Institution Rules contains eligibility for carrying out adoptions under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. These conditions are that such agencies shall be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and shall give an undertaking as follows. 12. Rule 6 of Institution Rules contains eligibility for carrying out adoptions under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. These conditions are that such agencies shall be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and shall give an undertaking as follows. (a) They shall adhere to any guidelines or rules laid down by the State Government or Central Government for incountry and inter-country adoption from time to time; (b) all registered agencies must function as per the Societies Registration Act and the Rules; (c) all the office bearers shall be Indian Nationals; (d) the Chief Executive of the Organisation shall be willing to sign a written undertaking to follow the down by the Supreme Court of India and those prescribed from time to time by the Government of India and the r regulations, if any, made by CARA; (e) they shall have an appropriate children Home for the protection and up-keep of children including infants; (g) they shall run on noncommercial and non-profit basis; (h) they shall be able to raise funds through donations or government grants; (i) they shall have atleast one qualified social worker on its staff to carry out the adoption work; U) the agency shall be an independent respected social child welfare agency; (k) they shall furnish copies of Bye-laws of the institutions; land (I) they shall furnish copies of audit statement of accounts for the past three years. 13. In 1960, Parliament enacted Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 (Central Act No.10 of 1960) (hereafter called, the Orphanage Act) to provide supervision and control of Orphanage Homes, which, as per Section 2(d) means an orphanage, a home for neglected women or children, widows home or any place intended for reception/ care/protection/welfare of women and children. A reading of 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' appended to the Bill introduced in the Parliament would show' that Orphanages Act is intended not to disturb existing Orphanages or Charitable Homes but to regularize management through a Managing Committee to be elected as prescribed. 14. The Orphanages Act contains 31 Sections divided into five Chapters. Chapter I contains Sections 1 to 4. Section 1 contains short title, territory and commencement of provisions. Section 2 is dictionary clause and Section 3 is exclusionary clause. Section 4 gives overriding effect of provisions of the Act. 14. The Orphanages Act contains 31 Sections divided into five Chapters. Chapter I contains Sections 1 to 4. Section 1 contains short title, territory and commencement of provisions. Section 2 is dictionary clause and Section 3 is exclusionary clause. Section 4 gives overriding effect of provisions of the Act. Chapter II (Sections 5 to 12) provides for establishment of 'Board of Control and Supervision of Homes' by the State Government. The functions and powers of such Board are indicated in Sections 7 and 8. It shall be duty of the Board to supervise and control generally all matters relating to management of Homes in accordance with provisions of the Act. In discharging its duties, the Board shall be bound by directions issued by State Government. It shall have powers to give general or special directions to the Manager of recognized Homes which shall be complied with. The Board is also given powers of inspection and power to enter any Home for ascertaining whether the provisions of the Act, the Rules, Regulations or directions are being complied with. Chapter III contains procedure for Recognition of Homes. Section 13 prohibits maintenance of a Home unless CoR is obtained under the Act, which can be revoked by the Board after giving an opportunity to manager to show cause as to why certificate should not be revoked. When an application is made for recognition, the Board may either refuse or grant such recognition but a certificate cannot be refused until an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. 15. Chapter IV contains regulatory provisions for management of recognized homes. It shall be the duty of the manager to comply with all the requirements of the Act, the Rules, the Regulations, directions and orders in respect of every woman or child admitted into recognized Home. A person who fails to comply with Rules or contravene conditions of CoR is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine as provided by Section 24 of the Orphanages Act. Section 29 empowers the State Government to make Rules and Section 30 empowers the Board constituted under Section 5 to make Regulations. State Government promulgated Orphanages Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 18-04-2001. Rules 11 to 14 deal with grant/refusal and revocation of recognition. 16. When an application is made, for grant of Certificate of Recognition, as per Rule 11 (2), the Board is required to consider various aspects. State Government promulgated Orphanages Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 18-04-2001. Rules 11 to 14 deal with grant/refusal and revocation of recognition. 16. When an application is made, for grant of Certificate of Recognition, as per Rule 11 (2), the Board is required to consider various aspects. These are: (i) antecedents and social status of the office bearers of the Managing Committee; (ii) suitability for running an institution; (iii) accommodation facilities; (iv) provision of medical facilities etc as per Rule 11 (2) (vii) read with (viii), children relinquished by biological parents on family grounds of poverty, number of children. If any unwanted girl child is admitted, the licence and recognition of Home or Orphanage shall be cancelled or withdrawn. If a child is found abandoned or picked up as destitute or abandoned by unwed mother or children whose parents expired in accident, it is mandatory that such children are registered (by civil/hospital/police officials) in the registers maintained with Project Director, District Women and Child Agency of Department of Women Development and Child Welfare. CARA GUIDELINES 17. Yet another instrument of Regulations is "Guidelines for Adoption from India 2006" made by CARA, which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India (hereafter called, Guidelines). These Guidelines provide a basis for in-country adoption within the framework of norms and principles laid down by Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pande (1 supra). Distributed over ten Chapters and four Annexures, they elaborately provide for various authorities/agencies, their role, powers and functions as well as method and manner of recommending placement agencies as well as adoption agencies. As per Section 3.1 in Chapter III, State Government has to license/recognize of children's homes engaged in adoption programmes of destitute, abandoned or orphaned children under relevant Act/Statute which only mean Orphanages Act and Rules made thereunder and Institutions Act and Rules made thereunder. Chapter IV of the Guidelines contain procedure for inter-country adoption in tune with Guidelines laid down by Supreme Court. These are to the effect that no application by a foreigner for taking a child in adoption should be entertained by any adoption/placement agency unless such application is sponsored by a social or child welfare agency licensed by Government or Department of foreign Government. 18. The procedure for inter-country adoption is in five steps. These are to the effect that no application by a foreigner for taking a child in adoption should be entertained by any adoption/placement agency unless such application is sponsored by a social or child welfare agency licensed by Government or Department of foreign Government. 18. The procedure for inter-country adoption is in five steps. After completing the procedure as contemplated in steps 1 to 4, the placement agency has to apply for NOC to CARA. After receiving such NOC, the petition has to be filed before the competent Court for adoption/guardianship. The Court then has to pass an order for placement of the child with foreign prospective adoptive parent. After this formality is completed, the placement agency would apply for a passport of the child and will be handed over to foreign adoptive parent who shall have to transfer to India to accompany the child to his/her country. Chapter V deals with recognized Indian placement agencies. Only agencies/institutions engaged in child welfare programmes can apply for recognition to CARA to State Government. Section 5.5(3) contains criteria for recognition of such agencies, which shall be granted for a period of three years. Even such recognized agencies are required to give priority to incountry adoption, 'so that every child gets an opportunity to find a family within its own cultural milieu'. Every recognized placement agency is required to maintain records as per Section 5.16. The procedure for renewal of recognition is contained in Section 5.18 and reads as under. 5.18 Renewal of Recognition of RIPA RIPA should apply for renewal of recognition, 6 months prior to the date of expiry of the previous recognition. The original application should be sent by the agency to the appropriate authority of the State Government and a copy of it should simultaneously be forwarded directly to CARA. The State Government will forward the original application to CARA along with its comments within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the complete application. If the State Government does not respond within three months from the date of receipt of application, CARA may conduct a joint inspection and consider the renewal of recognition. Recognition would normally be renewable for a period of three years subject to the following conditions: (a) Recommendation/views of the concerned State Government accompanied by the inspection report of the Agency. If the State Government does not respond within three months from the date of receipt of application, CARA may conduct a joint inspection and consider the renewal of recognition. Recognition would normally be renewable for a period of three years subject to the following conditions: (a) Recommendation/views of the concerned State Government accompanied by the inspection report of the Agency. (b) Satisfactory performance in relation to in-country adoption will be an important factor to assess and consider further renewal of recognition of any RIPA. The agencies shall sufficiently exhibit their involvement in the area of Incountry adoption. The Agencies will place 50% or more children in adoption to Indians in India. (c) Regular submission of Annual report, quarterly reports of the Agencies and audited statement of accounts as prescribed, adoption charges per child, donations received, if any. (d) No instance of proved malpractice against the RIPA. (e) Whether the agency is still recognized by the appropriate authority of concerned State Government for running the children home and doing in-country adoption under relevant Rules. (f) List of children placed in in-country and inter-country adoption, year wise for the period of three years to support the date submitted. 19. As can be seen from Section 5.18, an application for renewal of recognition is to be made six months prior to expiry, to appropriate authority of State Government who shall forward the same with recommendation. The renewal depends on recommendation of State Government and satisfactory performance in relation to incountry adoption. There should not be any instances of malpractices against such placement agency. As per Section 5.23, the placement agency shall have to adhere to ethical practices and work in best interest of children described in Hague Convention for inter-country adoption, 1993, failing which, action shall be taken against defaulting agency. CONSPECTUS OF LEGAL POSITION 20. The conspectus of Orphanages Act and Rules, the Institutions Act and Rules as well as CARA Guidelines would show that every agency, which establishes an institution for reception, care, protection and welfare of women and children, and every institution which establishes a Home whether it is called Orphanage or otherwise, is required to obtain a licence under Institutions Rules and CoR under Orphanage Rules. Only such institutions, who satisfy eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 6 of Institution Rules can seek registration as per Section 2.4 read with Section 3.1 of CARA Guidelines as recognized Indian Agencies for Inter-country Adoption (RIPA). Even for being a placement agency, in respect of incountry adoptions, a licence and CoR is required. If any licensed/recognized institution is reported to have resorted to malpractices, the State Government ordinarily cannot recommend such case for recognition of renewal of recognition under CARA Guidelines. PETITIONER'S CASE 21. Reverting to petitioner's case, in affidavit accompanying the writ petition, no details are forthcoming with regard to licence under Institutions Act and CoR under Orphanages Act. Be it noted that in Andhra Pradesh both these Acts came into force from 20-02-1992 (A.P. Gazette, 71, dated 19-02-1992). The Rules under these Acts have been made in 2001. Curiously, even without obtaining necessary licence/CoR, petitioner appears to have established an institution/orphanage and also assumed the role of adoption placement agency. Presumably, after the Judgment of Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (1 supra) and issue of Guidelines by Central Government in obedience to the dicta of the apex Court, the petitioner applied for CoR to CARA. Certificate No.89/2000, dated 09-10-2000 was issued for a period of one year from 06-10-2000 to 05-10-2001. This Certificate is subject to Guidelines issued by CARA and is liable to be revoked at any time for violation of any conditions or directions issued by Government of India or on the grounds of irregular practices by petitioner. During its period of validity, "adoption scam broke out". Serious allegations of trade in children were made. Inspections were conducted and in one such inspection, the officials of first respondent found irregularities and elements of misappropriation. 22. Director initiated action in May, 2001, and issued show cause notice,' dated 22-05-2001, alleging that petitioner is not maintaining proper records, that admission register does not contain details of adoptive parents and natural parents, declarations of biological parents were fictitious, relinquishment by biological parents does not contain the dates and proper witnesses and that by making use of fictitious declarations, unscrupulous elements are taking advantage. Explanation was submitted by petitioner. In the meanwhile, CARA also issued a show cause notice, dated 13-06-2001 proposing to de-recognise the petitioner. At that stage, petitioner applied for renewal of recognition. This was considered by Government. Explanation was submitted by petitioner. In the meanwhile, CARA also issued a show cause notice, dated 13-06-2001 proposing to de-recognise the petitioner. At that stage, petitioner applied for renewal of recognition. This was considered by Government. By their memo, dated 24-11-2001 the Government refused to recommend to CARA for renewal of recognition. After receiving these orders, Director as chairperson of the Board issued impugned order. It is no doubt true that many of contentions raised by petitioner (some of which form part of writ allegations mentioned hereinabove) were not considered. This is certainly contravention of Section 15(2) of Orphanages Act, which provides that an order of refusal cannot be passed without giving an opportunity to applicant or agency. ILLEGALITY CANNOT BE PERPETUATED 23. For this reason, in the ordinary course, impugned order has to be declared as illegal. If declaration of illegality gives rise to another illegal action of permitting petitioner to be adoption placement agency. that would certainly amount to allowing it to do so without proper licence/certificate of recognition. By not adhering to procedure with regard to accepting abandoned children and by creating fictitious relinquishment documents and not registering biological parents correctly, petitioners certainly violated the Orphanage Rules and Institution Rules. In such an event, a declaration cannot be granted because it would amount to permitting petitioner to continue illegality. It is well settled that an order cannot be quashed or set aside if it revives an illegality or an illegal order. A reference may be made to Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P.2 and State of Uttaranchal v. Ajit Singh Bhola. If the impugned order is set aside on the ground the it contravenes some provision of law and also on the ground that petitioner was not given opportunity to meet the allegations in the show cause notice, and a direction is issued to first respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner, it would enable unrecognized institution to handle incountry and inter-country adoption which is quite contrary to two Parliamentary Enactments as well as binding CARA Guidelines. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. BASIS FOR IMPUGNED ORDER 24. The impugned order rests on the following grounds. (i) The Department of Women Development conducted Joint Inspection of petitioner on 26-04-2001 and found that TLH is maintaining false records and committed several financial irregularities; (ii) a representative of Mrs. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. BASIS FOR IMPUGNED ORDER 24. The impugned order rests on the following grounds. (i) The Department of Women Development conducted Joint Inspection of petitioner on 26-04-2001 and found that TLH is maintaining false records and committed several financial irregularities; (ii) a representative of Mrs. Uma Pande, NRI, living in California, USA, gave a complaint about irregularity committed by TLH in sponsoring a baby girl for adoption, in that no proper relinquishment document was prepared 3.nd no F.I.R., was filed ir. Police Station as required for abandoned children besides fabricating false documents; (iii) Additional D.G.P., CBCID, reported that on verification of nineteen relinquishment documents, the biological parents could not be traced and addresses indicated in the documents are not correct, which is violation of CARA guidelines; and (iv) in 1999, S.P., Nalgonda, informed that seven female infants were sold during October, 1998, to March, 1999 and all the seven infants were given adoption to TLH by taking Rs.5,0001- to Rs.10,0001- per child and that TLH is not maintaining proper records. 25. Learned counsel for petitioner made an effort to raise various objections with regard to these four grounds. Learned Government Pleader has placed before this Cou1 necessary material, which would show that mention of these incidents in the impugned order is supported by documents. This Court is not an appellate authority nor this Court can go into correctness of allegations especially when highest police officials submitted their reports after conducting detailed field enquiry. Therefore, the question of veracity of these grounds is not within the scope of judicial review. Insofar as relevancy of these grounds is concerned, as per the provisions of Orphanages Act, Orphanage Rules, Institutions Act and Institutions Rules as well as CARA Guidelines, referred to herein, these are certainly malpractices and entail in cancellation of licence and/or cancellation or refusal (renewal) of Certificate of Recognition. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in favour of petitioner and set aside the impugned order. PARENS PATRIAE JURISDICTION 26. The case on hand is not merely the question of legal injury allegedly suffered by petitioner or proper or improper exercise of jurisdiction and powers by the respondents. This case is concerned with something more than this. PARENS PATRIAE JURISDICTION 26. The case on hand is not merely the question of legal injury allegedly suffered by petitioner or proper or improper exercise of jurisdiction and powers by the respondents. This case is concerned with something more than this. In the legal battle between Christian Missionary Institution and State/Central Government and/or its Agencies, the Court cannot forget the Indian citizens of tender age notwithstanding the fact that they are parentless children, orphans or abandoned children. This issue has arisen by reason of the averments in the additional affidavit filed by petitioner on 04-11-2008. For appreciation of the point, it is necessary to summarise the contents thereof. In 2000, there were floods in Hyderabad. Many children were admitted in TLH with severe health problems. The parents could not afford to get them treated. The Government Hospital allegedly refused to treat them. The petitioner got them admitted in Rainbow Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for treatment at a huge cost. As at present, petitioner-institution has twenty-six children (actual number of children is not available) for whom TLH obtained clearance of VAC.A and NOC from Central Government. The adoptive parents from different European countries, the U.S.A., came forward and agreed to adopt the children. The details of which are mentioned in para 7 of the additional affidavit. The petitioner states that if these cases are not processed for inter-country adoption, there would be problems. There are no local couples willing to adopt children. Further, after agreeing to adopt the children many adoptive parents from different countries are regularly in touch with the children and developed a bond with them. Though necessary documents executed by these willing adoptive parents are not enclosed nor filed before this Court the names of parents (with their Nationality) willing to adopt each of the children are as follows. SI.No. Name of the Child Name of the Adoptive Parents 1 Ragini Mr. Robert Crackel Mrs. Andrea Spain 2 Bloosom Mr. Raabe Robert Mrs. Galan Madero Spain 3 Ratna Mr. Pouzeri Umberto Mrs. Galan Madero Spain 4 Lavanya Mr. Robert F. Justis Mrs. Helen M. Justis U.S.A. 5 Himabindu Mr. Keith Hasart Mrs. Andrea Cracket U.S.A. 6 Jessy Mr. Robert Cracket Mrs. Andrea Cracket U.S.A. 7 Satish Mr. Steven W. Gilbert Mrs. Beverley R. Gilbert U.S.A. 8 Nanditha Ms. Lynn Marquette U.S.A. 9 Aleena Mr. Schoonroven Mrs. Kille Sijgie Johanna Netherland 10 Bizili Mr. Laurence Bernhard Mrs. Robert F. Justis Mrs. Helen M. Justis U.S.A. 5 Himabindu Mr. Keith Hasart Mrs. Andrea Cracket U.S.A. 6 Jessy Mr. Robert Cracket Mrs. Andrea Cracket U.S.A. 7 Satish Mr. Steven W. Gilbert Mrs. Beverley R. Gilbert U.S.A. 8 Nanditha Ms. Lynn Marquette U.S.A. 9 Aleena Mr. Schoonroven Mrs. Kille Sijgie Johanna Netherland 10 Bizili Mr. Laurence Bernhard Mrs. Klijinstra Jolande Netherland 11 Anusha Mr. Lurence Bernhard Mrs. Julia Ann Netherland 12 Vismaya Mr. Arous Thomas Mrs. Julia Ann U.S.A. 13 Suguna Mr. Jurt Holeweg Mrs. Gabi Holeweg Germany 14 Mythili Mr. Ute Baumhoff Mrs. Joachin Baumhoff Germany 15 Vennela Dr. Dennis Keith Boxby Mrs. Sarah Dadmun U.S.A. 16 Santhoshi and Pradeep Mr. Brice Lewis Mrs. Zina Lewis U.S.A. 17 Avanthi Mr.Allen Stipek Mrs. Cynthia Stipek U.S.A. 18 Sri kala and Sasikala Mr. Alsterlund Todd Mrs. Tracy Howton U.S.A. 19 Namratha Mr. Rachel Cary U.S.A. 20 Poornima Mr. Robert K. Sumpter Mrs. Rene J. Smith U.S.A. 21 Lizzy Mr. Joel Mishler Mrs. Kimberly Mishler U.S.A. 22 Healen Mr. Mathew Risley Mrs. Beverley R. Gilbert U.S.A. 23 Jacqueline Mr. Mark. Brockmeyer Mrs. Jennifer Brockmeyer U.S.A. 24 Manjusha Mr. Kavin Hoffman Mrs. Connie Hoffman U.S.A. 25 Sreedevi Mr. William Paxson Mrs. Cynthia Parson U.S.A. 26 Prema Mr. Ramdy R. Scheijets Mrs. Roseann Thersa U.S.A. 27. In a situation such as this, where the local people are not willing to adopt these children, the Court cannot ignore the welfare of the children. No doubt, learned Government Pleader submits that the Department of Child Welfare has a list of local people who are willing to adopt these children and if the children are handed over to Government of Andhra Pradesh in Child Welfare Department, the Government will take care of them. When the children are already given in adoption to foreign parents who developed a bond with them by reason of regular visits to them, can the Court ignore and issue a direction to petitioner to handover the children to Government Department ignoring the welfare of these children. The answer must be in the negative. 28. Parens Patriae jurisdiction is the right and duty of sovereign to protect persons with disabilities who have no rightful protector. It refers to the power of the State of Guardianship over persons under disability. The answer must be in the negative. 28. Parens Patriae jurisdiction is the right and duty of sovereign to protect persons with disabilities who have no rightful protector. It refers to the power of the State of Guardianship over persons under disability. In cases involving custody of minor children, whether it be by divorce or suppression or death of natural parents, the Court as the institution sharing sovereign power of the State cannot ignore the welfare of the orphan children. In L. Chandran v. Venkatalakshmf, speaking for Division Bench Justice P.A. Chowdary, explained the law of parens patriae jurisdiction of the Courts in the matter of custody of children, thus Particularly in the case of minors who cannot be expected to express their intelligent preferences the modern State assumes the ultimate responsibility for their welfare. This is the origin of parens patriae jurisdiction of the Courts sharing in the sovereign power of the State. In exercise of this jurisdiction, which is derived not by reason of any statute but as an inseparable attribute of judicial power of the State, the Court should always look to the welfare of the minor in all matters relating to its life. Every claim including the one which has been advanced in this case by the father for the custody of the minor child, must be subordinate to the power and duty of this jurisdiction to look after the welfare of the minor. 29. The child that too an orphan child is not a chattel to be tossed up between competing rights. A child being a person has constitutionally recognized human right to life and liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, there cannot be concept of unlimited power of the Government to exclusively deal with such unfortunate children. Constitutionally, it is within the power of the High Court to protect the life of every child (see paras 11 and 12 in L. Chandran (4 supra)). While deciding case of this nature, the Court cannot forget the welfare of the child. This Court, however, hastens to add that these observations must not be construed as indicating that the welfare of the abandoned child would be better protected if given in adoption to a foreign parent in preference to a local parent. While deciding case of this nature, the Court cannot forget the welfare of the child. This Court, however, hastens to add that these observations must not be construed as indicating that the welfare of the abandoned child would be better protected if given in adoption to a foreign parent in preference to a local parent. Indeed, in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (1 supra), Supreme Court categorically laid down that inter-country adoption is permissible only when in-country adoption is not possible. Even under CARA Guidelines, 2006, while dealing with adoption of orphan child, the right of the orphan child to find a family as visualized in United Nation's Convention on Child Rights and Hague Convention on inter country adoption must be kept in mind. The National Policy for the Welfare of Children also lays stress on the role played by voluntary organizations in the field of education, health and social welfare services for children. Therefore, the welfare of the 26 children who have been already adopted by foreign parents cannot be ignored. Chapter IV of CARA Guidelines contains detailed procedure for inter-country adoption, which can be resorted to only when local persons are not available to adopt abandoned/orphan child. Chapter V (Section 5.5) contains procedure for in-country adoption. Indian Placement Agencies like TLH are required to give priority for in-country adoption. The order of priority while considering adoption of Indian children is as follows: (i) Indian citizens living in India; (ii) Indian citizens living abroad; (iii) Both parents of Indian origin abroad (PIG); (iv) one parent of Indian origin abroad; and (v) Foreign Nationals. 30. As per the averments in the additional affidavit filed on 04-11-2008 (these are not denied by respondents by filing appropriate additional counter affidavit), twenty-six (26) children already been cleared by Central Government for adoption and these cases have to be processed so that foreign parents who have already adopted these children can leave the country. These children were brought to TLH in 2000. In all probability, all these children are more than eight years of age. At this stage, it may be difficult for them to adjust with adoptive parents of Indian Origin. Therefore, as far as possible the cases of these twenty-six (26) children must be allowed to be processed by TLH so that all these children would have better life. In all probability, all these children are more than eight years of age. At this stage, it may be difficult for them to adjust with adoptive parents of Indian Origin. Therefore, as far as possible the cases of these twenty-six (26) children must be allowed to be processed by TLH so that all these children would have better life. However, the officials of CARA and a designated officer from the Department of child Welfare can be associated in processing cases of these twenty-six (26) children. 31. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. (i) There is no merit in the writ petition insofar as it seeks to challenge the impugned letter of the Chairperson of the Board of Supervision and Control of Homes being letter No.3950/02/2001, dated 01-02-2001. The same is declared as legal and valid; (ii) Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner should be permitted to explore the possibilities of giving these twenty-six children in adoption to local persons i.e., Indian citizens living in India. The processing of these cases shall be under the supervision of an official of Central Adoption Resource Agency and an official of Department of Child Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh; (iii) In case, it is not possible to find local persons, i.e., Indian citizens living in India, as per the procedure in Chapter IV of Guidelines for Adoption from India, 2006, issued by Central Adoption Resource Agency, Ministry of Social Welfare and Empowerment, New Delhi, TLH should be allowed to process the cases of twenty-six (26) children mentioned in this Judgment supra, to enable these children to leave for the respective countries; (iv) It shall also be open to petitioner to obtain necessary licence under Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960; Andhra Pradesh Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Rules, 2001; Women's and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 and Andhra Pradesh Women's and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Rules, 2001; as well as Registration, if any required under CARA Guidelines, in which event such application shall be considered in accordance with law; and (v) There shall be no order as to costs.