- (1.) The first petitioner is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The second petitioner is its Secretary. The members of the first petitioner are engaged in various programmes for the upliftment of the underprivileged, disadvantaged and marginalized section of the society. The first petitioner is an enlisted specialized Indian adoption agency, duly licensed by the Central Adoption Resources Authority, the fifth respondent, for undertaking intra -country and inter -country adoption.
(2.) The petitioners have sought for Mandamus/ direction on the learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat to dispose of application(s) for adoption as expeditiously as possible but not beyond two months from the date of its filing as also to hold proceedings in camera. Certiorari/order has further been prayed for to set aside orders dated May 31, 2012 and June 19, 2012, whereby the learned District Judge has allegedly rejected applications for adoption on grounds which are foreign to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereafter the Act), as amended by the Amendment Act, 2006. Also, regular monitoring of adoption matters by this Hon'ble Court in terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decisions in Lakhmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244, and Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 1985 (Supp) SCC 701 has been prayed for.
(3.) If the statements made in the writ petition are to be believed, it brings to the fore the total mess created by the District Court at Barasat. Orders passed by the learned District Judge rejecting the applications made under Section 41(3) of the Act have been looked into. To my mind, prima facie, considerations not germane have influenced the mind of the learned District Judge who, in his anxiety to protect the interests of the child sought to be adopted, has in effect passed orders that would operate to his detriment and prejudice. It seems that the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate the noble object and purpose that the Act seeks to serve.;