TUSHAR KANTI DAS Vs. KAJAL SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Government Pleader placed before us three reports in three separate sealed envelopes, which are:

(2.) We have perused the reports carefully. The District Child Protection Officer in his report has stated that clinical Psychologist and Counsellor of Juvenile Justice Board, Howrah had interacted with the child on 9/2/2022 and 22/2/2022 when it was noticed that the child was interacting gladly with her biological father and she was happy though the child was also concerned about Julie Roy, with whom she was living. In our previous order dtd. 2/2/2022, we have permitted CWC to exercise all or any of the powers under Sec. 37 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Rule 18 of the West Bengal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2017, keeping in mind the welfare of the child.

(3.) Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Miss. Julie Roy has submitted that the exercise of jurisdiction by CWC under Sec. 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act read with the relevant Rules is not applicable in the instant case since the child was taken well care by her care giver. The decision of the CWC to remove the child from the custody of her care giver on 16/2/2022 and to place the child under the custody of Superintendent, Nabajibon Home is contrary to law, illegal and without jurisdiction.