ANKUR PRATISTHAN AND SANSHODHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution brings in question the order dated 20th April, 2002 issued by the director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune granting permission in favour of the respondent no. 7 to run the Vrudha Ashram at Ambejogai and further seeks directions to consider the application of the petitioner for running the said vrudha Ashram. The other reliefs are for directions to release an amount of rs. 12,88,830/ and also the unpaid amount of grant-in-aid for the period from march, 2000 to June, 2002.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are relevant, could be set out as under: the petitioner - Ankur Pratishthan Sanshodhan Sanstha, Ambejogai is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and some of its objects are to impart education and undertake social as well as cultural activities. The Government of Maharashtra had issued a resolution on 17/11/1995 announcing a scheme for homes of aged citizens (Vrudha Ashram) to be run by the non-government organizations. In all 70 such Vrudha Ashrams were intended to be started through the State of Maharashtra. An amount of rs. 750/= per inmate in addition to the funding of building was the financial benefit announced under the said scheme which covered men above 60 years and women above 55 years. In every district, there was one Vrudha Ashram proposed. The petitioner was one of the institutions which responded to this policy decision and submitted its application for running the Vrudha Ashram at ambejogai in Beed District. Its proposal was considered favourably and by order dated 15. 1. 1996 it was granted permission to start Vrudha Ashram at ambejogai. It constructed a building for the said Ashram and the building expenditure came to Rs. 67,88,830/ as per the certificate issued by the Executive engineer, P. W. D. , Ambejogai on 28th March, 2002 and the Government of maharashtra had contributed an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/towards the said building. Thus, an amount of Rs. 12,88,830/= was invested by the petitioner from its funds. The Vrudha Ashram was commenced in the year, 1997-98 and the strength of the inmates reached to 115.

(3.) IT appears that the Social Welfare Officer, Beed visited the Vrudha Ashram on 25. 11. 2000 and noticed certain deficiencies. A show cause notice dated 20/ 24/04/2001 followed thereafter against the petitioner and issued by the director, Social Welfare. The only charge in the said show cause notice was that against the capacity of 100, the strength of inmates had come down to less than 50. The visit report of the Social Welfare Officer indicated that on the day of visit, the strength was 31 on rolls and only 24 were physically present. The director, Social Welfare by the said show cause notice, took a stand that the reduction of strength of the inmates below 50 was a sufficient reason and serious enough to withdraw the permission/recognition granted in favour of the petitioner. Reply to the show clause notice was required to be submitted by 10. 5. 2001. On 4. 5. 2001 the petitioner submitted reply. The petitioner contended that though during the visit of the Social Welfare Officer on 21. 11. 2000, the strength of the inmates had come down to 31, the said strength on the date of reply had reached to 58 which was more than 5,0% of its capacity. The petitioner had also indicated that the strength of 58 was also likely to go up. The petitioner, therefore, requested to withdraw the show cause notice. However, by order dated 4/ 6/05/2001, the Director, Social Welfare held that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and he withdrew the permission recognition of the petitioner institution by noting that the strength of inmates had reduced below 50. The permission granted in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the government Resolution dated 17. 11. 1995 was withdrawn w. e. f. 21. 6. 2001. The petitioner submitted an appeal on 25. 6. 2001 to the State Government against the order passed by the Director, Social Welfare. The appeal remained pending.