Bombay High Court
SUJATA SIDRAMAPPA ANGADIversusCOMMISSIONERATE OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition was withdrawn and disposed of, leaving the substantive issue unresolved.
Summary
Ms. Sujata Sidramappa Angadi filed a public interest litigation alleging that educational hostels run by her clients are not child care institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 because they lack children in need of care and protection. The Court expressed reluctance to entertain the PIL and, after the petitioner’s instructions, allowed the petition to be withdrawn. The petition was consequently disposed of as withdrawn. The Court indicated that any affected hostel operator may file a separate writ petition for individual relief. No substantive decision on the legal question was rendered.
Issues considered
- Do educational hostels operated by private entities fall within the definition of ‘child care institution’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in the absence of children in need of care and protection?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- juvenile justice
- child care institution
- educational hostel
- withdrawal
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH PANDIT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 39 OF 2026
Date: 2026.07.28
19:40:39 +0530
Ms. Sujata Sidramappa Angadi …. Petitioner.
V/s
Commissioner of Women and
Child Development,
State of Maharashtra and Anr. …. Respondents.
Mr. Satyajeet Anil Rajeshirke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, G.P.with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P. with
Mrs. P.J. Gavhane, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 27TH JULY, 2026
P.C. :
1. We heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner for some
time. The Petitioner is a consultant who has filed this PIL on behalf of
her clients, contending that the Educational Hostels operated by her
clients do not fall within the definition of ‘child care institution’
under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
in the absence of Children in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP).
1/2
20 PIL-39-26.odt bdp
2. We expressed our disinclination to entertain the PIL,
considering the cause put forth by the Petitioner.
3. The learned Advocate was granted pass-over. He submits,
after taking instructions, that the Petitioner desires to withdraw this
Petition. Those Hostel operators who are her clients, may approach
individually to this Court by filing Writ Petitions since they have
received notices from the competent authorities.
4. As such, this PIL Petition is disposed off as withdrawn on
instructions. If the affected party files a Writ Petition in this Court, the
same would be considered on its own merits.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
2/2
20 PIL-39-26.odt bdp
Checking your session…