JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, a trust, running a hostel for students of backward classes, has challenged order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the respondent/State, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, cancelling the recognition of the said hostel, has been confirmed. 3. The sanctioned strength of students was 124 in the said hostel of backward class managed by the petitioner trust. On 07.08.2016, an incident occurred in the hostel, where three persons working as cooks in a nearby institution, allegedly attacked a minor student who was resident of the said hostel. The police was informed about the said incident by the Superintendent of the said Hostel on 07.08.2016 itself, although first information report (FIR) was registered on 12.08.2016. Information regarding the said incident was given to the District Social Welfare Officer, Amravati, on 08.08.2016. It is this incident, which has led to action being taken against the petitioner trust which culminated in the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, cancelling the recognition of the hostel. 4. The record shows that a show cause notice of August, 2016 (the said notice does not bear a specific date) was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, to the Secretary of petitioner Trust referring to the said incident dated 07.08.2016 in which a student suffered injuries and asked for explanation on seven points. This included the aforesaid incident as also an earlier alleged incident dated 31.07.2016, delay in reporting of the said incident dated 07.08.2016, as also some alleged deficiencies in the form of toilets being unclean and the number of toilets not being sufficient in the hostel. The Secretary of the petitioner trust submitted a reply dated 22.08.2016 to the said show cause notice. Thereafter on 25.11.2016, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Amravati, issued the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 cancelling the recognition of the hostel. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner trust filed an appeal under the scheme envisaged under Government Resolution dated 16.03.1998. The appeal was filed before the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. Thereafter on 25.11.2016, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Amravati, issued the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 cancelling the recognition of the hostel. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner trust filed an appeal under the scheme envisaged under Government Resolution dated 16.03.1998. The appeal was filed before the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. By the impugned order dated 27.01.2017, the appeal was dismissed and the order of cancellation of recognition of the hostel stood confirmed. 6. Mr. P.S. Chawhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Amravati and the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, are unsustainable, because show cause notice was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer while the impugned order cancelling the recognition was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, which did not make a reference to the reply to show cause notice, submitted on behalf of the petitioner trust. It was submitted that the provisions of the G.R. dated 16.03.1998 were not followed by the respondent while taking action against the petitioner trust. It was further pointed out that in the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner trust, reference was made to certain alleged earlier inspection reports of the year 2010 and 2013 to draw an inference against the petitioner trust, when these reports were not relevant and a finding was rendered that the hostel had become unsafe for students without sufficient material to support such a conclusion. It was pointed out that the incident dated 07.08.2016 was immediately reported to the Police on the same day and since the said day was a Sunday, information about the incident was given to the District Social Welfare Officer immediately on the next day i.e. 08.08.2016. It was further pointed out that the minor child who had suffered injuries was immediately taken for treatment and the Warden of the hostel stood suspended against whom an enquiry was pending. On this basis, it was submitted that the action of cancellation of recognition of the hostel was high-handed and uncalled for. 7. On the other hand, Mr. It was further pointed out that the minor child who had suffered injuries was immediately taken for treatment and the Warden of the hostel stood suspended against whom an enquiry was pending. On this basis, it was submitted that the action of cancellation of recognition of the hostel was high-handed and uncalled for. 7. On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Chutke, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent, submitted that the requirements of the G.R. dated 16.03.1998 had been followed in the present case, because prior approval of the Commissioner, Social Welfare of the State of Maharashtra, was taken on 19.11.2016 before the order dated 25.11.2016 was passed for cancellation of the recognition of the hostel. It was pointed out that the petitioner trust had failed to explain as to why the incident in question was not reported immediately to the District Social Welfare Officer and that an earlier incident of 31.07.2016 was also not reported, thereby showing that the finding rendered by the appellate authority that the hostel had become unsafe for students, was justified. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. The material on record shows that an incident occurred on 07.08.2016, when a minor student resident of the said hostel, was subjected to violence by certain persons due to which he suffered serious injuries. It is also found that the incident was reported on the very same day by the Superintendent of the Hostel to the nearest Police Station. An acknowledgment about such information given by the Superintendent of the Hostel issued by the Police Station, has been placed on record. It is found that the incident was reported to the District Social Welfare Officer on 08.08.2016, which was the next day of the incident. It is explained on behalf of the petitioner trust that the hostel authorities were concerned about the medical assistance to be given to the injured student and since 07.08.2016 was a Sunday, the information regarding the incident was given to the District Social Welfare Officer immediately on the next day i.e. 08.08.2016. As regards alleged earlier incident of 31.07.2016, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner trust that the said incident came to light when the accused in the said incident were apprehended and statements were made by them with regard to the earlier incident. As regards alleged earlier incident of 31.07.2016, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner trust that the said incident came to light when the accused in the said incident were apprehended and statements were made by them with regard to the earlier incident. The show cause notice shows that there is no specific date of the said notice, although the month of August, 2016 is mentioned. There are seven issues referred to in the said show cause notice, which refer to the two incidents of 31.07.2016 and 07.08.2016, as also some alleged deficiencies regarding lack of cleanliness in the toilets and the number of toilets being less than the desired number. It is interesting that inspection reports prepared by the Office of the Social Welfare Officer itself dated 09.08.2016, 11.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 have referred only to the incident dated 07.08.2016 and there is no reference in these inspection reports about the alleged deficiencies mentioned in the show cause notice. The petitioner trust gave its explanation to the points raised in the said show cause notice. 10. Another significant aspect of the present case is that the show cause notice was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Amravati, while the relevant provisions of the G.R. dated 16.03.1998 mandate that a show cause notice would be issued by the Chief Executive Officer. In this case, while the show cause notice was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 cancelling the recognition of the hostel, was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati. This demonstrates that the Authority which issued the show cause notice was not the same Authority which issued the impugned order of cancellation of recognition of the hostel. Apart from this, the said order dated 25.11.2016 cancelling the recognition of the hostel does not refer to explanation given by the petitioner trust to the show cause notice issued by the District Social Welfare Officer. This demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Amravati. 11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the appellate Authority i.e. Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, shows that the primary reason for dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of cancellation of recognition of the hostel was that the hostel had been rendered unsafe for the students. 11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the appellate Authority i.e. Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, shows that the primary reason for dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of cancellation of recognition of the hostel was that the hostel had been rendered unsafe for the students. Apart from this, reference was made in the said order to reports dated 08.10.2010 and 13.08.2013, which were allegedly adverse to the petitioner trust. The record shows that the said reports were not referred to or relied upon when show cause notice was issued to the petitioner trust and in any case these reports pertained to the year 2010 and 2013, while the show cause notice was issued in the month of August, 2016. The said facts coupled with the inspection reports of 09.08.2016, 11.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 on record show that the alleged deficiencies on which action was sought to be taken by the respondent-authority, were not found to be existing in the month of August, 2016. 12. As regards the hostel being rendered unsafe, it appears from the record that the incident of violence against the minor student did take place on 07.08.2016, regarding which a police complaint was made leading to registration of first information report, the accused were arrested and the Police is investigating the matter. The Warden of the hostel was suspended against whom an enquiry is also pending. The Superintendent of the hostel had reported the said incident immediately to the Police and on the next day to the District Social Welfare Officer. The facts of the present case do not show that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner trust in reporting the matter to the District Social Welfare Officer because the explanation about immediate concern for the welfare of the child appears to be plausible. 13. A perusal of the G.R. dated 16.03.1998 shows that a specific procedure is provided therein under Clause 10 regarding the procedure to be adopted for taking action against the institutions that have been granted permission to run hostel. 13. A perusal of the G.R. dated 16.03.1998 shows that a specific procedure is provided therein under Clause 10 regarding the procedure to be adopted for taking action against the institutions that have been granted permission to run hostel. The procedure stood violated in the present case because admittedly the show cause notice was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer and not the Chief Executive Officer, as mandated in Clause 10 of the said G.R. The explanation given by the petitioner trust was not even referred to by the Chief Executive Officer while passing the impugned order dated 25.11.2016, apart from the fact that the show cause notice was issued by another authority. The violation of the said procedure indicates that principles of natural justice were not followed in the present case. Even on merits, a perusal of the order dated 19.11.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Social Welfare granting approval for taking action against the petitioner trust shows that the findings rendered therein are not based on the facts and material on record. It appears that after the said incident of violence was reported, the authorities came to a conclusion that the hostel had become unsafe and that it ought to be closed down. The manner in which the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 cancelling the recognition of the hostel of the petitioner trust was passed, shows that the material germane to the present case was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective. The impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the appellate authority also suffers from lack of appreciation of the material on record. 14. The material on record clearly shows that the petitioner trust and the concerned officials in the said hostel did take prompt action as regards the incident that took place on 07.08.2016 and that the police investigation against the accused as well as the departmental enquiry against the Warden of the hostel have been immediately undertaken and the same are pending. In this situation, it cannot be said that there was sufficient material for the respondents to issue the order of cancellation of recognition of the hostel for backward class students being run by the petitioner trust since the year 1996. 15. In this situation, it cannot be said that there was sufficient material for the respondents to issue the order of cancellation of recognition of the hostel for backward class students being run by the petitioner trust since the year 1996. 15. As regards, the security and safety of the students in the said hostel, the petitioner trust has filed an additional affidavit on record stating that two security guards have been appointed in the hostel premises and that 9 CCTV cameras have been installed in the hostel area for surveillance, documents of which are also placed on record along with the said affidavit to show that the said arrangements have been made. This fact is not disputed or denied by the respondent-authority in any manner. 16. In the light of the above, it becomes clear that the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati and the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Secretary of the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department are unsustainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the said impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 17. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.