JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to issue orders appointing the petitioner as fit person for the 10 children including child R.Jessica by complying the direction of the second respondent in letter dated 18.02.2015.) 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the third respondent to issue orders, appointing the petitioner as fit person for the 10 children, including child R.Jessica by complying with the directions of the second respondent in letter dated 18.02.2015. 2. The petitioner is the Trust and Mr.P.Russel Raj, who filed the affidavit claims to be the Managing Trustee of the petitioner-Trust. 3. It is contended that ten girl children are being cared by the Trust. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation, seeking recognition from the District Collector. Thus, petitioner-Trust filed the present writ petition. 5. The second respondent-District Welfare Officer filed counter-affidavit categorically states that the petitioner procured children, especially the girl children, only for the personal benefit of the petitioner-Trust. 6. It is relevant to extract paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent and the same reads as under:- “11. I humbly submit to state that the petitioner has wrongly stated that the first respondent has issued directions to the third respondent to appoint him as the fit person for the children in his children home. It was only with the best interest of the children a letter vide Lr.No.2028/A1/2014 dated 18.02.2015 has been sent to Child Welfare Committee with the consent of the District Collector for consideration for the issue of retention orders. But no such question arises now, since the petitioner and the Managing Trustee of the Destitute Charitable Trust Children Home, P.Russel Raj and his family have been found to indulge in fraudulent practices in procuring children for the children home only to enjoy the huge amounts of donations received from foreign donors through their Foreign Currency Regulatory Act accounts and through local donations. The petitioner P.Russel Raj himself has stated in his letter dated 08.10.2013 that he has reared one girl child below 5 years without knowing that it is illegal and have assured that in future he will not take children below the age of 5 years without getting prior permission. The petitioner P.Russel Raj himself has stated in his letter dated 08.10.2013 that he has reared one girl child below 5 years without knowing that it is illegal and have assured that in future he will not take children below the age of 5 years without getting prior permission. But it is pertinent to inform the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras that the District Social Welfare Officer, Kancheepuram and the Child Welfare Committee after receiving the telephonic message raided the premises at No.40, Bethel Hme, Jaiwanthpuram, Madampakkam occupied by Simsone, 78 years and Kanagajoy, 60 years, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of P.Russel Raj on 20.06.2015 at 6 P.M., and rescued 3 girl children namely Siny, Jenithal and Siniya (all below the age of 3) and on 23.06.2015 another girl child named Princy aged about 2-1/4 was rescued with the help of Selaiyur Police and all the above 4 children have been sent to Christ Faith Home, a Licensed Adoption Agency at Manapakkam, Chennai. A First Information Report has been filed in Selaiyur Police Station against P.Russel Raj, his wife Jayakumari and his in-laws on 24.06.2015 under Sections 341, 363, 3618, r/w Section 34 of IPC and later arrested on 07.07.2015. All these 4 girl children along with the other 10 children from the Destitute Charitable Trust Children Home have been either procured or have been trafficked from the various parts of the Tamil Nadu State and kept in illegal custody by the petitioner who lacks the locus standi to question the respondents. This clearly depicts that the petitioner and his family members are involved in procuring children especially girls only for their personal benefits. The petitioner is indulged in such fraudulent practices and is running the children home in violation of all the relevant Sections of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended in 2006, the rules therein and the Integrated Child Protection Scheme Norms.” 7. In view of the fact that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-Trust and the Authorities Competent found that the Trust is not carrying on its activities in a legal manner, the question of considering the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition would not arise at all. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.