1. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The is a petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.12.2011 as passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (Adoption) No. 208 of 2011. It appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed in contrast to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5) of section 41 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protections of Children) Act, 2000. Profitably the said sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 41 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are extracted hereunder : "(3) In keeping with the provisions of the various guidelines for adoption issued from time to time by the State Government, the Hoard shall be empowered to give children in adoption and carry out such investigations as are required for giving children in adoption in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government from time-to-time in this regard. (5) No child shall be offered for adoption - (a) until two members of the committee declare the child legally free for placement in the case of abandoned children, (b) till the two months period for reconsideration by the parent is over in the case of surrendered children, and (c) without his consent in the case of a child who can understand and express his consent." In the present case, the respondents filed an application before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala under section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 praying for giving adoption of an abandoned child and the respondents herein made the present petitioners as respondents in the said proceeding along with the Superintendent, IGM Hospital, West Tripura District. The respondents stated before the learned District Judge that on 11.7.2011 they discovered a new born abandoned child in a bush near Trinath Mandir area, Assam Para under Ranirbazar PS. Immediately the respondent No.1 informed the matter to the Officor-in-charge, Ranirbazar PS and the said information has also been recorded aw Ranirbazar PG G.D.E. No. 788 dated 11.7.2011. The duty officer reached that spot and the baby was recovered and taken to the IGM Hospital for special care and treatment. Immediately the respondent No.1 informed the matter to the Officor-in-charge, Ranirbazar PS and the said information has also been recorded aw Ranirbazar PG G.D.E. No. 788 dated 11.7.2011. The duty officer reached that spot and the baby was recovered and taken to the IGM Hospital for special care and treatment. Initially, there has been some hiccups regarding treatment of the abandoned child. However, when the respondents undertook to bear the expenses of medical treatment, the child was given the proper treatment. Since the Superintendent, IGM Hospital refused to give the abandoned child to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the child was handed over to the custody of 'Shishu Greeha', the registered child care home for care and custody. The said child is still under their custody. Thereafter, the respondents prayed to the child welfare Committee, West Tripura District, Agartala for foster care and adoption but they did not handover the custody of the child for care. Ultimately the respondents filed the said petition for adoption stating that they have the financial capabilities though they have two daughters aged about eight and half years and four years respectively. The present petitioners objected against the adoption stating that at that stage the court could not give adoption to the child in view of sub-sections (31 and (5) of section 41 of the said Act. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines governing the adoption of children has been published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development by Notification dated 4.6.2011 as published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Issue. In the said guidelines clause 16 requires a declaration to the effect that the child is legally free for adoption, by the child welfare committee. It is provided in the said clause 16 that if all efforts for tracing the parents of an orphan or an abandoned child, placed with a Specialised Adoption Agency for the intervening period, have failed, and, in case of surrendered children, if the reclaim period of sixty days is over, the particular agency shall approach the child Welfare Committee for declaring the child legally free for adoption. In the case in hand, there was no such declaring inn by the Child Welfare Committee. In addition thereto, in clause 23 of the said guideline it has been provided how the legal procedure has to be pursued. In the case in hand, there was no such declaring inn by the Child Welfare Committee. In addition thereto, in clause 23 of the said guideline it has been provided how the legal procedure has to be pursued. Clause 23 of the said Notification provides that: "(1) The child can be legally placed for adoption with the PAP(s) by the; competent court and for this purpose, the court having jurisdiction over the area where the Specialised Adoption Agency is located shall be the competent court. (2) The Specialised Adoption Agency shall file a petition in the competent Court of Jurisdiction for obtaining the necessary adoption orders under the Act within ten days of acceptance of referral by PAPs and shall pursue the same regularly with the court so that the process of legal adoption is completed at the earliest. (3) The adoption petition shall contain all requisite documents as per Schedule-VII. (4) In accordance with the directions of the honourable Supreme Court of India the case of L.K. Pandy v. Union of India (WP No. 1171 of 1982), the competent court is required to disposed off the case within a maximum period of two months from the date of filing. (5). For the best interest of the child, the competent court may, to the extent possible, dispose of the case in the first hearing itself. (6) The Specialised Adoption Agency shall forward a copy of the court order and the adoption deed to the concerned SARA or ACA and the PAP(s)." The grievance of the petitioner in this case, as stated is that the said procedure was not fallowed and as such there was violation of subsections (3) and (5) of section 41 of the said Act. On the other hand, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that these are mere technicalities. Despite the respondents approached the Child Welfare committee time and again, they did not act in accordance with the guidelines and ultimately the respondents filed the petition before the learned district Judge, West Tripura, Agartala out of compassion and affection for the abandoned child. The petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their lapse. Be that as it may, there is no room for any casual approach or for making departure from the statutory provisions or guidelines framed thereunder. The petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their lapse. Be that as it may, there is no room for any casual approach or for making departure from the statutory provisions or guidelines framed thereunder. The issue is very vulnerable and cannot be left with the unbridled discretion of the court. Since the learned District Judge has acted indisputable in contravention of the said statutory provisions, this court has been left with no alternative but to interfere the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. There is no controversy regarding the jurisdiction of the court since; the Specialised Adoption Agency is situated at Agartala and as such the learned District Judge has got the jurisdiction to decide the issue only after the due declaration as pointed out be made by the Child Welfare Committee concerned and the Specialised Adoption Agency makes an appropriate prayer before the court for adoption. In view of this, the petitioner are directed to make the necessary legal declaration within a period of fortnight from today since sufficient time has already been elapsed, if it is not already done. Thereafter, the specialized child agency shall make appropriate application within two weeks from such declaration without fail. Learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala shall make an attempt to dispose of the entire matter on its first hearing. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Before parting with the records, it is necessary to note that as per direction of this court the Child Welfare Committee, West Tripura District has rejected the prayer of the respondents for the foster care and as such the custody of the child shall remain with the child welfare committee till the issue is decided by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala as per the procedure as prescribed. A copy of the communication dated 29.3.2012 be kept with the records marking the same as Annexure X. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. _____________