ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Respondent No.1-State of Uttar Pradesh is represented by standing counsel and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are stated to be wife and husband respectively. Writ Petition No.441/2024 was filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein before the Allahabad High Court, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus. This appeal arises out of the said Writ Petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2024, which has been passed against the appellant-Adyaksh Bal Kalyan Samiti who was respondent No.2 before the High Court, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Although respondent Nos.3 and 4 may not have been served and hence, have not appeared before this Court, nevertheless having regard to the facts of the present case and the canvas within which this appeal arises, we do not think their presence is a necessity before this Court. 5. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State, we have heard this appeal on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein filed the writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the following reliefs; “1. To issue a mandamus in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondent no.3, namely Rajkiye Bal Grah Balika Unit-2, Surya Vihar, Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, through its Superintendent, to produce the Corpus/petitioner no.1, Smt. Neha @ Uma Kumari (Corpus), D/o Karan Pal. At present detain at Rajkiye Bal Grah Balika Unit-2, Surya Vihar, Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, before this Hon’ble High Court on the date fixed and she may be set at liberty forthwith. 2. To issue any other petition order and direction in the nature of mandamus as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstance of the case.” 7. That the said Writ Petition was filed before the High Court on the premise that the third respondent herein was in illegal detention in the Rajkiya Bal Grah Balika Sindhi Kheda, Ashray Grih, District Lucknow and it was averred that it was a case of illegal detention. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein also averred that since they were married, they wished to live together. 8. While considering the said Writ Petition, medical examination of the detenue was ordered and the Chief Medical Officer, Sambhal by report dated 02.01.2024 determined the age of the third respondent herein as eighteen years. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein also averred that since they were married, they wished to live together. 8. While considering the said Writ Petition, medical examination of the detenue was ordered and the Chief Medical Officer, Sambhal by report dated 02.01.2024 determined the age of the third respondent herein as eighteen years. In the circumstances, the detenue was ordered to be released from detention from custody of the appellant herein. While passing the aforesaid order, the High Court has also directed that all the five members who were signatories of the order dated 06.03.2024 and who are the members of the Child Welfare Committee, Budaun be present before the Court on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 24.07.2024. However, being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred the Special Leave Petition and by order dated 22.07.2024, this Court has stayed the said order. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that firstly, the Writ Petition seeking the writ of Habeas Corpus was not at all maintainable. Secondly, the third respondent-detenue was admitted to the Bal Grah Balika Sindhi Kheda, pursuant to order dated 06.03.2024 passed under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (for short “J.J. Act”) owing to registration of a criminal case in Crime No.337/2023 under Section 363 of the IPC, Police Station Islam Nagar, Badaun on the premise that the third respondent was only sixteen years and nine months and therefore, a minor. 10. He further submitted that when pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the third respondent herein was produced before the High Court and there was also a determination that she was not at all a minor and she was ordered to be released by the High Court, the consequent direction that the appellant(s) herein, five members of the Child Welfare Committee ought to be present before the High Court was wholly unwarranted. He submitted that when there was no challenge to the order dated 06.03.2024 and the purpose of filing the Habeas Corpus petition was achieved and respondent Nos.3 and 4 went away together as husband and wife and there was no further action to be taken in the matter, the impugned order directing the appellant(s) herein to be present before the High Court was unwarranted and hence, the said direction may be set aside. 11. 11. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the first respondent-State also endorsed the fact that the third respondent detenue was released from custody and she would have gone along with the fourth respondent. That the object and purpose of filing the writ of Habeas Corpus was achieved. In the circumstances, appropriate orders may be made by this Court. 12. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for a reiteration. 13. We note that irrespective of whether Writ Petition seeking the writ of Habeas Corpus was maintainable or not, the fact remains that the third respondent herein was ordered to be released from the custody of the second and third respondents before the High Court. She was in fact released. Therefore, there was nothing further which remained in the Writ Petition for consideration. 14. We note that the third respondent was taken into the custody by the appellant pursuant to the order of the appellant dated 06.03.2024 which order has not been assailed before any forum and particularly by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. 15. In the circumstances, we find that the direction for the five members who are the signatories of the order dated 06.03.2024 to remain present before the Court on 24.07.2024 was wholly unnecessary. That apart, it was also determined by the High Court that the third respondent herein was not in fact a minor but was a major. 16. In the circumstances, we set aside the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.