JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.4. and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae. 2. Today, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner could not address his arguments though he had addressed the Court on 15.02.2017 and 23.02.2017 as he is stated to be not well. 3. When the case was earlier taken up for consideration, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.4. 4. The petitioner had filed an affidavit of dasti service stating that copy of the notice was not received by the respondent No.4. 5. In the affidavit that is filed by the respondent No.4, it is asserted that the respondent No.4 was not aware of the fact that it had been arrayed as a party respondent to this writ petition and when the aforesaid fact came to its knowledge, a counsel was engaged to represent it. 6. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking custody of Radhika Tanti, who is presently under the care and protection of the respondent No.4, stating that she is the paternal aunt of Radhika, whose father expired in the year 2008 and mother on 07.08.2010 and that she is the only surviving near relative of Radhika. It is pleaded in the writ petition that some police personnel from Dispur Police Station raided the house of the person in whose house Radhika Tanti was staying and recovered her and thereafter, she was handed over to the respondent No.4. Though she had attempted a number of times to meet Radhika, the members of the respondent No.4 did not allow her to meet her niece. It is stated that Radhika Tanti was reading in Class-II in the year 2006 and she is now about 18 years old. 7. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to hand over Radhika to the custody of the petitioner. 8. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the Social Welfare Department stating that there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is a relative of Radhika Tanti and that Radhika Tanti had also never revealed any personal relationship with the petitioner during her counseling session. 8. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the Social Welfare Department stating that there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is a relative of Radhika Tanti and that Radhika Tanti had also never revealed any personal relationship with the petitioner during her counseling session. It is pleaded that the petitioner is incapable of providing fooding, lodging and schooling facilities to Radhika, who is receiving good care and protection while being in the care and protection of the respondent No.4 for the last 2(two) years. It is recited that Radhika was rescued by Child Line, an NGO and later on, she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Kamrup (M) and as per the directions of the Child Welfare Committee, she was kept with respondent No.4 for her care and protection. In the said affidavit, a copy of the birth certificate dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services is also enclosed, wherein the date of birth is recorded as 03.03.2000. Along with the said affidavit, the objection filed by the respondent No.4 for handing over custody of Radhika Tanti is also enclosed. 9. In the affidavit of the respondent No.4, it is stated that in connection with assault, etc. upon Radhika by Mr. Champak Kalita and Mrs. Anjana Medhi, who kept her as a domestic helper in their house, an Ejahar was lodged on 04.07.2014. It is further stated that Radhika Tanti, who is a rescued child labour and is in need of care and protection, was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Kamrup (M) and the Child Welfare Committee, Kamrup (M) in CWC Case No.2840/2014, vide order dated 24.06.2014, directed that Radhika be put under care and protection of the respondent No.4. It is also stated in the affidavit that the respondent No.4 has 28 beds, 3 dormitories, 5 classrooms and 3 bathrooms and presently it is giving shelter to 17 minor girls and 8 major girls in its aftercare plan. 24 of them had been referred by the Child Welfare Committee. All the minor girls and 7 major girls are attending formal education and besides, they are provided with training in art and craft, tailoring, self defence and computer. 10. 24 of them had been referred by the Child Welfare Committee. All the minor girls and 7 major girls are attending formal education and besides, they are provided with training in art and craft, tailoring, self defence and computer. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the school certificate, which is annexed as Annexure-1 of the writ petition, would go to show that Radhika was born on 01.01.1998 and, therefore, she is no longer a minor and as such, Radhika should be allowed to go wherever she wants to go and the petitioner being her paternal aunt, is willing to take the custody of Radhika. It is submitted that the birth certificate, which is annexed in the affidavit of respondent No.2, cannot be relied upon as it was issued only in the year 2016 and that apart, it is not correct as recorded therein that Radhika was born in Guwahati. It is submitted that Radhika was born in Udalguri and, therefore, no credence can be placed on the said birth certificate. It is further submitted that the petitioner also resided along with Radhika in the very same house from which Radhika was allegedly recovered. 11. Mr. Doloi has submitted that Radhika was put in care and protection of the respondent No.4 by virtue of the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Kamrup (M) and, therefore, bearing in mind the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act”), it is the Child Welfare Committee who should have been approached by the petitioner, if at all, she is interested in the custody of Radhika. Mr. Doloi has very vehemently argued that pleadings in the writ petition would go to show that the writ petitioner herself is not in a position to take care of her own needs and, therefore, she is not a fit person under any circumstances to be given the custody of Radhika, more so, when the petitioner herself had got Radhika engaged as a child labour and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the birth certificate annexed with the affidavit of the respondent No.2 was in terms of Section 94(2)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, the argument of Ms. Choudhury is not tenable. 12. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the birth certificate annexed with the affidavit of the respondent No.2 was in terms of Section 94(2)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, the argument of Ms. Choudhury is not tenable. He has submitted that welfare of Radhika is of utmost importance and it appears to him that she is getting proper care and protection under respondent No.4. He has also argued that the Child Welfare Committee is the authority who should have been approached by the petitioner, if at all the petitioner had any grievance with the functioning of the respondent No.4 or if the petitioner was desirous of getting custody of Radhika on the ground that she had attained majority. 13. Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that Radhika was given under care and protection of the respondent No.4 by the Child Welfare Committee and the respondent No.4 will abide by any direction issued by this Court or by the Child Welfare Committee. He, however, submits that the issue, in the first place, is best left to be considered by the Child Welfare Committee. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 15. In the writ petition, the petitioner had indicated that she has no permanent source of income. In the writ petition, the petitioner had not disclosed the name of the person in whose house Radhika was kept. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had, however, mentioned about the name of the person in whose house Radhika was put as a child labour. In the said reply affidavit, the petitioner had mentioned that Radhika also has her maternal grandfather though the said fact was not mentioned in the writ petition. 16. Though a contention was sought to be advanced by the petitioner that the petitioner herself resided in the same house along with Radhika, in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition it is pleaded that she used to visit now and then the house of the lady (meaning the employer) from where Radhika was rescued. 17. It appears that based on the Ejahar, Dispur Police Station Case No.1334/2014 was registered under Sections 325/326/34 IPC read with Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. 17. It appears that based on the Ejahar, Dispur Police Station Case No.1334/2014 was registered under Sections 325/326/34 IPC read with Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. During the course of the proceedings, a copy of the charge-sheet was also placed before this Court from which it appears that Mr. Champak Kalita and Mrs. Anjana Medhi were sent up for trial. 18. It appears that the Child Welfare Committee had registered a case being CWC Case No.2840/2014. The Court is given to understand that the said case is not closed and the Child Welfare Committee takes up the matter at periodic intervals. An order dated 22.09.2016 is produced before the Court during the course of hearing, wherein it is recorded that Radhika was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Kamrup (M) on that day. It was observed therein, amongst others, that she would continue to stay in the Seven Sister Home, i.e. the respondent No.4, for long term care. 19. Seven Sister Home is a Project of Asian Rural Life Development Foundation Trust (ARLDRIT), registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882. It is a Home for girls subjected to child trafficking and/or abuse and who are in need of care and protection. 20. From the materials on record, it appears to the Court that Radhika was a child who was in need of care and protection in terms of Section 2 of Sub-Section (14) of the Act. 21. “Fit person” as defined in Section 2(28) of the Act means any person, prepared to own the responsibility of a child, for a specific purpose, and such person is identified after inquiry made in this behalf and recognized as fit for the said purpose, by the Committee (Child Welfare Committee) or, as the case may be, the Board (Juvenile Justice Board), to receive and take care of the child. 22. Child Welfare Committees are constituted under Section 27 of the Act. The powers of the Committee are delineated in Section 29 of the Act. Sub-Section (1) of Section 29 of the Act provides that the Committee shall have the authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection. The powers of the Committee are delineated in Section 29 of the Act. Sub-Section (1) of Section 29 of the Act provides that the Committee shall have the authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 also provides that such Committee shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, have the power to deal exclusively with all proceedings under the Act relating to children in need of care and protection. Functions and responsibilities of the Committees are also laid down in Section 30 of the Act. Such functions and responsibilities include, amongst others, taking cognizance of and receiving the children produced before it, conducting inquiry on all issues relating to and affecting the safety and well-being of the children under the Act, selecting registered institution for placement of each child requiring institutional support, based on the child’s age, gender, disability and needs and keeping in mind the available capacity of the institution, accessing appropriate legal services for children and such other functions and responsibilities. Thus, it appears that the Child Welfare Committee is entrusted with practically all the facets encompassing the needs of a child in need of care and protection and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the Child Welfare Committee is the appropriate authority to decide such a prayer made by the petitioner. 23. Materials demonstrate that the petitioner had not approached the Child Welfare Committee praying for getting custody of Radhika on the ground that she has attained majority. 24. Taking that view, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the Child Welfare Committee, Kamrup (M). In the event of petitioner filing any application before the Child Welfare Committee, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act, keeping in mind that the interest of a rescued victim has to be given paramount importance. 25. A copy of the order dated 22.09.2016, as produced by Mr. Baruah, is placed on record.