Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed to challenge the communication dated 30.09.2020 issued by respondent no.4 - the District Social Welfare Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. Thereby, the earlier approval granted to the petitioner no.1 to run an old age home has been cancelled and its existing inmates-forty seven in number, directed to be shifted to another old age home run by respondent no.5.
3. Relevant to the dispute, it may be noted that petitioner no.1 is a registered society. It established the facility namely, an old age home at District Sant Kabir Nagar with a capacity to accommodate 150 senior citizens. Petitioner no.2 has described himself as the Superintendent of the old age home in question. On 15.03.2017, it was granted approval by respondent no. 2 - the Director, Social Welfare, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, to run that facility. The initial term of that approval was three years. The State has also granted aid to the petitioner to run the said old age home. Almost at the end of three years, an inspection is stated to have been conducted on 29.02.2020 at the facility being run by the petitioner, by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Lucknow, U.P. A nineteen-point report was prepared by the said Deputy Director in his inspection note. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the State.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, without any jurisdiction and without issuing any show cause notice or calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the impugned communication dated 30.09.2020 was issued by the Director, Social Welfare, cancelling the approval of the petitioner facility, for a solitary reason that that facility was not as per the government norms. No other violation has been made or elaborated in the impugned communication.
5. Various grounds of challenge have been pressed. Considering the wide impact of such action by the State authorities, on the vulnerable and exposed members of the society, besides affecting the activity of the petitioners, we have proceeded to consider the dispute raised by the petitioner, in its widest amplitude.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State, we find, under section 19 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'), the State Government is obligated to establish such number of old age homes in each district as may be necessary, the minimum being one old age home in each district of the State. Under section 19(2) read section 32 (2) (d) of the Act, the State Government has been delegated, amongst others, the power to frame Rules to provide for a Scheme for management of old age homes and to prescribe standards and types of services to be provided as may be necessary for medical care, entertainment etc. of the inmates of such old age homes. Thus, The Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules') have been framed and enforced by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules read as under:
"20. Scheme for management of oldage homes for indigent senior citizens. - (1) Oldage homes established under Section 19 of the Act shall be run in accordance with the following norms and standards:
(A) The home shall have physical facilities and shall be run in accordance with the operational norms as laid down in Schedule III.
(B) Inmates of the home shall be selected in accordance with the following procedure:
(a) applications shall be invited at appropriate intervals, but at least once each year, from indigent senior citizens, as defined in Section 19 of the Act, desirous of living in the home;
(b) in case the number of eligible applicants on any occasion is more than the number of places available in a home for admission, selection of inmates will be made in the following manner:
(i) the more indigent and needy will be given preference over the less indigent applicants;
(ii) other things being equal, older senior citizens will be given preference over the less old; and
(iii) other things being equal, female applicants will be given preference over male applicants.
Illiterate and/or very senior citizens may also be admitted without any formal application if the competent authority, is satisfied that the senior citizen is not in a position to make a formal application, but is badly in need of shelter;
(c) While considering applications or cases for admission, no distinction shall be made on the basis of religion or caste;
(d) The home shall provide separate lodging for men and women inmates, unless a male and a female inmate are either blood relations or a married couple;
(e) Day-to-day affairs of the old age home shall be managed by a Management Committee, such that inmates are also suitably represented on the Committee.
(2) State Government may issued detailed guidelines/orders from time to time for admission into and management of oldage homes in accordance with the norms and standards laid down in sub-rule (1) and the Schedule.
(3) State Government may form implementation committee at district level for management of day to day affairs of oldage homes.
(4) Visitors will be allowed in the oldage homes upon prior permission of the home management within prescribed hours, keeping in mind the security and welfare of the inmates.
(5) Under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act and other relevant sections the State Government/department will start and publish integrated schemes and appropriate guide line for senior citizens."
21. Duties and Powers of the District Magistrate. - (1) The District Magistrate shall perform the duties and exercise the powers mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out in his district.
(2) It shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to:
(i) ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity;
(ii) oversee and monitor the work of Maintenance Tribunals and Maintenance Officers of the district with a view to ensuring timely and fair disposal of applications for maintenance, and execution of Tribunals' orders;
(iii) oversee and monitor the working of old homes in the district so as to ensure that they conform to the standards laid down in these rules and any other guidelines and orders of the Government;
(iv) ensure regular and wide publicity of the provisions of the Act, and Central and State Governments, programmes for the welfare of senior citizens;
(v) encourage and co-ordinate with panchayats, municipalities, Nehru Yuva Kendras, educational institutions and especially their National Service Scheme Units, organizations, specialists, experts, activists, etc. working in the district so that their resources and efforts are effectively pooled for the welfare of senior citizens of the district;
(vi) ensure provision of timely assistance and relief to senior citizens in the event of natural calamities and other emergencies;
(vii) ensure periodic sensitization of officers of various Departments and Local Bodies concerned with welfare of senior citizens, towards the needs of such citizens, and the duty of the officers towards the latter;
(viii) review the progress of investigation and trial of cases relating to senior citizens in the district, except in cities having a Divisional Inspector General of Police;
(ix) ensure that adequate number of prescribed application forms for maintenance are available in offices of common contact for citizens like Panchayats, Block Development Offices, Tahsildar Offices, District Social Welfare Offices, Collectorate, Police Station etc;
(x) promote establishment of dedicated help lines for senior citizens at district headquarters, to begin with; and
(xi) perform such other function as the Government, may by order, assign to the District Magistrate in this behalf, from time to time.
(3) With a view to performing the duties mentioned in sub-rule (2), the District Magistrate shall be competent to issue such directions, not consistent with the Act; these rules, and general guidelines of the Government, as may be necessary, to any concerned Government or statutory agency or body working in the district, and especially to the following;
(a) Officers of the State Government in the Police, Health and Publicity Departments, and the Department dealing with welfare of senior citizens;
(b) Maintenance Tribunals and Conciliation Officers;
(c) Panchayats and Municipalities; and
(d) Educational Institution."
7. The Schedule to the Rules lays down norms of physical facilities and operational standards for an old age home for indigent senior citizen, established under section 19 of the Act. It reads as below:
"NORMS OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AN OLD AGE HOME FOR INDIGENT SENIOR CITIZEN ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ACT.
(I) Physical Facilities (1) Land: The land for the old age home should be adequate to compete with the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) as prescribed by the relevant urban body/rural areas, the State Government shall provide adequate land for setting up of an old age home of requisite capacity that is adequate for living, medical, dining, toilet facilities, recreation, gardening, further expansion, etc. (2) Living Space: The oldage home shall, as far as possible, have minimum area per intimate as per inmate as per the following norms:
(i) area of bedroom/dormitory per inmate.. 7.5 Sq. metres
(ii) Living area or carpet area per inmate i.e. including (i) above.. 12 Sq. metres plus ancilliary areas like kitchen, dining hall, recreation room, medical room, etc., but excluding verandah, corridor, etc. (2). Facilities (1) The old age home shall have the following facilities:
(i) residential area comprising rooms/dormitories - separately for men and women;
(ii) adequate water for drinking and ancillary purposes;
(iii) electricity, fans and heating arrangement for inmates (as necessary);
(iv) kitchen-cum-store-and office;
(v) dining hall;
(vi) adequate number of toilets and baths, including toilets suitable for disabled persons;
(vii) recreation facilities, television, newspaper and an adequate collection of books: and
(viii) first aid, sick bay, and primary healthcare facilities.
(2) The old age home should be barrier-free with provision of ramps and handrails, and, wherever necessary, lifts etc. (3) Operational standards (1) Supply of nutritious and wholesome diet as per scale to be fixed by the State Government.
(2) Adequate clothing and linen for the inmates, including for the winter season.
(3) Adequate arrangements for sanitation, hygiene, and watch and ward/security.
(4) Arrangements with the nearest Government hospital for emergency medical care, and with the nearest Police Station for security requirements."
8. In the first place, by virtue of the clear intent expressed in Rule 21 (2) (iii) of the Rules and in absence of any other contrary provision of law, in that regard, we find, the District Magistrate of each district alone has been vested with the authority to ensure that the old age home such as the one set up by the petitioner complies with the laws. The power to grant approval is nothing more than a certification made that the old age home conforms to the laws. The District Social Welfare Officer is not the District Magistrate. That power vests in the District Magistrate and no other authority. There is no delegation of that authority, in law and therefore, none is permissible. Consequently, the communication issued by the District Social Welfare Officer dated 30.09.2020 is found to be without jurisdiction and non-est.
9. Even otherwise, a perusal of the Schedule to the Rules and therefore the Scheme framed by the State Government reveals, it provides for the standard of the accommodation - with reference to Floor-Area Ratio (FAR); private living space, being size of bedroom; common living area; separate rooms for men and women; clean water for drinking and other purposes; electricity supply; kitchen-cum-store; dining hall; toilets and bathrooms including toilets for disabled persons; recreation facilities; access to television, newspaper, first aid, sick bay; other facilities for assistance and comfort for living of the old and disabled persons. That Scheme also lays down the operational standards required to be maintained, being availability of wholesome diet, clothing, sanitation, hygiene, security and access to government medical hospitals and emergency medical aid as also police station.
10. As to facts noted in the inspection report dated 29.02.2020, it does not appear that any specific or functional or other fundamental inadequacy or deficiency was noted, in the facility being run by the petitioner. Amongst the nineteen points on which the report was submitted, it has been observed, against point no.1 that the room size is very small. At the same time, the size of the rooms inspected has been recorded as 8 x 10 feet (15 rooms) and 10 x 10 feet (3 rooms). Against the prescribed norm of 7.5 sq. meters, the smaller room size noted in the inspection report is 8' x 10' feet, i.e. 7.43 sq. meter. Second, the record of routine medical check-up (of the inmates) was not found at the time of inspection. Third, deficiencies were noted with respect to admission granted by the petitioner to the inmates. Thus, admission of some of the inmates was found not approved by the District Social Welfare Officer. Direction was issued for necessary correction to be made in that regard. Also, against 15 employees required at the petitioner's facility, the staff was found to be short by three. However, the inspection note also records that the petitioner was seeking to make fresh appointments. Fourth, the total number of inmates (47) was observed to be less than the capacity (150). Again, a direction was issued to fill up the facility with adequate number of inmates.
11. Other than the above observations, it has been positively mentioned in the inspection report that the facility being run by the petitioner has available, power back up of 5 kVA electricity generator and another back up provided by two power inverters sets. The water availability was also found to be proper. The location of the facility is about 500 meters from the police station. On enquiry made, the inmates informed the inspection team that they were being helped to do Yoga exercises and to offer prayers, at the facility. The district hospital was reported to be 2 kms away from the facility. The facility for bed and storage etc. were found adequate. The food being supplied to the inmates was found to be as per menu that was being rotated. The store was also inspected and the food ingredients etc. were found to be of desired quality. The kitchen facility was also found to be proper. Out of forty seven inmates residing at the petitioner's facility, 25 were males and 18 females. The attendance register was also found to have been properly maintained. Cleanliness was also found to be of desired standard at the petitioner's facility. Facilities for recreation such as availability of carrom board, playing cards, etc. were found existing.
12. Detailed reference has been made by us to the inspection report to bring out the true nature of deficiencies noted therein. None of the deficiencies noted in the inspection report gave rise to any show cause notice or other proceeding against the petitioner by the District Magistrate or any other authority, before the impugned communication dated 30.09.2020 came to be issued. In fact, none of those deficiencies has been stated or cited as a reason to cancel the approval granted to the petitioner society.
13. On the other hand, it clearly appears that the facility being run by the petitioner was of desired quality, fit for human inhabitation by the citizens in need thereof, as contemplated by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The detailed note of inspection dated 29.02.2020 referred to above, clearly points in that direction. That inspection note per se does not indicate either violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or any provision of the Act, the Rules or the Scheme proved thereunder.
14. Though we are not inherently inclined to draw a subjective satisfaction as to the facts found during that inspection as that exercise may not be desirable, though not impermissible in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we proceed to examine the prima facie merit of the objections noted in the inspection dated 29.02.2020. While doing so, we are conscious of the time-tested rule applicable to exercise of judicial review - an order may be defended on the strength of the recital it contains and not what the authority may seek to rely in support thereof, upon challenge being made to the same. In Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16, it was observed:
"13. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
15. We have been constrained to adopt that pro-active approach as the avowed object of the Act and the Rules is humanitarian that in the context of the State action is to advance the welfare object of the State and to further the purpose, firmly established by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we allow the learned standing counsel to rely on the points noted in the inspection note to test if there exists any material whatsoever to contemplate a proceeding to cancel the approval granted to the petitioner. If the result of that enquiry would result in an answer in the negative, there would survive no need to adopt the jurisprudentially most palatable option to remand the proceedings. It is so because, cancellation of the approval of the old age home, three years after it has been run, affects, amongst others, the right to shelter of the indigent and other inmates of that home.
16. An old age home is not a reformatory home or a place of confinement. It is the last hope offered by the society, of humanity, to the indigent, the abandoned, the uncared and the needy. Once brought to that last refuge, it offers hope of a goodlife that human existence deserves by its very nature. It helps preserve and rekindle that hope - in those who need it the most. Such a place provides an opportunity of some companionship, emotional support, therapeutic occupation, friendships and acquaintances, recreation facilities and activities to overcome social isolation, if not on a sustained or permanent basis, at least on some intermittent and temporary basis. It provides independence to senior citizens in daily life and helps them re-establish faith in high values of life. Bereft of such ingredients, a human life may truly be reduced to a bare animal existence. In the context of the Act, the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 636 recognised the right to live with dignity, right to shelter and right to health as parts of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held:
"44. We accept that the right to life provided for in Article 21 of the Constitution must be given an expansive meaning. The right to life, we acknowledge, encompasses several rights but for the time being we are concerned with three important constitutional rights, each one of them being basic and fundamental. These rights articulated by the petitioner are the right to live with dignity, the right to shelter and the right to health. The State is obligated to ensure that these fundamental rights are not only protected but are enforced and made available to all citizens".
17. Looked in that perspective, the displacement of the inmates of an old age home on whims and fancies of government functionaries and others is not only undesirable but would have a deleterious impact on the already seriously impaired fundamental right to live with dignity, of the hapless citizens who are forced purely by turn of circumstances and vagaries of life, to reside at such homes for reasons not of their making. It may not be forgotten, to be housed and to be taken care of at an old age home, upon being abandoned or not cared enough, itself involves a dent to human dignity, to lesser or larger extent, depending on the individual circumstances visiting each inmate, immediately preceding his admission to such facility.
18. However, with passage of time, some wounds may heal. Hurt and injury to one's dignity may be soothed by the balm of love, affection and care received and time lived in a conducive environment. Such inmates/persons may develop desired or necessary levels of comfort, companionship, friendships, social inter dependencies, besides enjoying some comfort within the safe physical environment of an old age home where they may be housed. To forcibly move out such inmates for trivial, non-permissible grounds noted in routine inspection notes may be to allow for another violation of or injury to arise, to their fundamental right to live with dignity, though unintentionally. Also, it would defeat the very object that the Act, Rules & the Scheme seek to serve.
19. The inmates of an old age home are not hostages of time. They are living human beings whose life and dignity the welfare State promises to protect. We cannot fathom a situation where life and dignity of a human being may be claimed to have been protected if his opinion as to his choice of residence is completely ignored or not heard. One who may have been abandoned or left alone cannot be shifted from one facility to another with his choice counting for nothing. We do not see how his fundamental right to dignity may be claimed to have been protected unless his views are ascertained and considered. In the other situation, though a free citizen he would have been treated and dealt with as not.
20. It is not only the life but the dignity of human existence that the Act and the Rules clearly seek to preserve. The inmates being the persons whose fundamental right to live with dignity and to shelter is likely to be affected upon an action that may be proposed by the District Magistrate, a minimum opportunity of being heard, is necessary wherever such proposed action may result in dislocation of the inmates. Though their views may not be decisive as to the action to be taken yet, due weightage must be given to the same before a final decision is taken.
21. In Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 2 SCC 121, it was observed:
"7. Unfortunately, Counsel overlooked the basic link-up between constitutionality and deviation from the audi alteram partem rule in this jurisdiction and chose to focus on the familiar subject of natural justice as an independent requirement and the illegality following upon its non-compliance. In Indian constitutional law, natural justice does not exist as an absolute jural value but is humanistically read by Courts into those great rights enshrined in Part III as the quintessence of reasonableness. We are not unmindful that from Seneca's Medea, the Magna Carta and Lord Coke to the constitutional norms of modem nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is a deeply rooted principle that "the body of no free man shall be taken, nor imprisoned, nor disseised, nor outlawed, nor banished nor destroyed in any way" without opportunity for defence and one of the first principles of this sense of justice is that you must not permit one side to use means of influencing a decision which means are not known to the other side.
8.
9. ...
...
14.Where hearing is obligated by a statute which affects the fundamental right of a citizen, the duty to give the hearing sounds in constitutional requirement and failure to comply with such a duty is fatal. Maybe that in ordinary legislation or at common law a tribunal, having jurisdiction and failing to hear the parties, may commit an illegality which may render the proceedings voidable when a direct attack is made thereon by way of appeal, revision or review, but nullity is the consequence of unconstitutionality and so without going into the larger issue and its plural divisions, we may roundly conclude that the order of an administrative authority charged with the duty of complying with natural justice in the exercise of power before restricting the fundamental right of a citizen is void and ab initio of no legal efficacy. The duty to hear manacles his jurisdictional exercise and any act is, in its inception, void except when performed in accordance with the conditions laid down in regard to hearing. Maybe, this is a radical approach, but the alternative is a traversty of constitutional guarantees, which leads to the conclusion of post-legitimated disobedience of initially unconstitutional orders........
15.
16. ....
....
20. We express no final opinion on the many wide-ranging problems in public law of illegal orders and violations thereof by citizens, grave though some of them may be. But we do hold that an order which is void may be directly and collaterally challenged in legal proceedings. An order is null and void if the statute clothing the Administrative Tribunal with power conditions it with the obligation to hear, expressly or by implication. Beyond doubt, an order which infringes a fundamental freedom passed in violation of the audi alteram partem rule is a nullity. When a competent court holds such official act or order invalid, or sets it aside, it operates from nativity, i.e., the impugned act or order was never valid. The French jurists call it L'inexistence or outlawed order (Brown and Garner: French Administrative Law, p. 127) and could not found the ground for a prosecution. On this limited ratio the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. We allow his appeal".
22. Thus, in our view, any action such as cancellation of an earlier approval granted to an old age home would result in dislocation of it's inmates. It would have to be tested if the inmates of such an old age home perceive any loss of or violation of their fundamental right to live with dignity. To that end, we read into these proceedings an opportunity of hearing to its inmates to ascertain their individual and collective views on the subject matter of such proceedings. It is necessary to safeguard their fundamental right to live with dignity. The impugned communication dated 30.09.2020 has clearly been issued without ascertaining the views of the inmates on the change proposed. For that reason as well the said communication cannot be sustained.
23. On merits, we find, against the room size 7.5 sq. meters prescribed by the Rules, the measurement of the smaller rooms at the petitioners' facility was found to be 7.432 sq meters. The difference, even if exists is negligible. In fact, it is meaningless. There is no satisfaction recorded of that room size being insufficient or inadequate. Also, the room size is not alleged to have been altered after the grant of approval in 2017. The other deficiencies recorded - of a few admissions having been granted without approval of the authorities and; less number of staff by three (out of fifteen) were issues that ought to have been resolved by issuing time bound directions for necessary compliance by the petitioner. Also, in absence of any satisfaction of lack of medical care of the inmates in general and/or any inmate in particular, the lack of record of regular medical check-up could not, per se, be relied on to support action of cancellation of approval to run the old age home that too by way of a measure of first resort. Corrective measures should have been specified and enforced on the petitioner, in a time bound manner. The respondent authorities may remember the Act, the Rules and the State government's Scheme seek to pursue the welfare object of the State and establish old age homes as a collaborative effort by the State with active participation of private individuals etc. That spirit of the laws must pervade all State actions to establish, run and improve such facilities.
24. A holistic view ought to have been taken before cancelling the petitioner's approval. Here, it may be noted that such facility could not have been granted approval and it could not have run unless proper inspection had been made prior to its running. It is not the case of the respondents that such inspection was not carried out before the approval was granted. Before cancellation of the approval that results in closure of the facility/old age home, facts must exist, be ascertained and be considered by the District Magistrate and his objective satisfaction must be recorded, in writing to justify such extreme action. It is necessary to protect the interest of the vulnerable and the needy i.e. the inmates or potential inmates in particular and the society in general, beside ensuring fairness in State action.
25. Thus, cancellation of approval has to be a measure of last resort, to be adopted when no realistic possibility is seen to exist to help or make such old age home run in accordance with the laws. It may be adopted only after (i) serious deficiencies/lacuna/violations are noticed by the respondent authorities in the course of their regular inspections or otherwise, (ii) those deficiencies/lacuna/violations have been notified to the person running the facility by means of a prior written notice (issued by the District Magistrate) requiring it to rectify the same in a reasonable time or to show cause, (iii) the person has failed to offer necessary rectification and (iv) the District Magistrate is satisfied for cogent reasons to be recorded in writing (a) upon consideration of the reply furnished by the petitioner to that notice [(ii) above], that the facility/old age home was being run contrary to any mandatory provision of the Act or the Rules or the Scheme framed by the State Government, to the detriment of the inmates/potential inmates and (b) that the person failed to or is unable to make necessary corrections as may ensure that the old age home is run in accordance with the Act read with the Rules and the Scheme. At that stage and before taking that final decision, the views of the inmates of the old age home must be ascertained and considered before taking any decision that may result in transferring them out from the existing facility.
26. In the present facts, it may be safely assumed in the context of the inspection report dated 29.02.2020 and the earlier approval granted, the petitioner facility was largely in order and therefore the approval was granted to it in the year 2017. No serious or incurable defect or deficiency having been noted and the inmates being not dissatisfied with the same, it was an obligation on the State authorities to extend the approval rather than initiate cancellation proceedings. An approval once granted should be looked to be continued though with equal conviction all efforts should be continuously made to ensure that such an old age home complies with all laws and stays true to the object for which it may have been established.
27. The power given to the respondents under the Rules and the Scheme is to monitor and to regulate such facility. Once the facility has been set up in accordance with law, its approval cannot be cancelled or tinkered with in a casual or whimsical manner as that action has, amongst others, a negative impact on the inmates for whose benefit it exists. It also brings a wholly avoidable uncertainty in their lives. Any defect or deficiency that may have been noted in the running the facility, duly approved, ought to be corrected by issuing necessary directions and by seeking necessary compliance/s, in the spirit of collaboration, in a time bound manner.
28. In that regard, we find that the deficiencies with respect to non-approval of the admission of the inmates, non-maintenance of record of medical check-up and shortage of staff have been noted in the inspection report. Those have to be corrected. To that extent, the inspection report and the direction issued are wholly correct. However, we are unable to appreciate the cancellation order being passed on a bald assertion that the facility is not being run as per the norms. Neither the violation of norms has been specified in the impugned communication nor the petitioner has been given any notice or opportunity to cure or explain the same nor we find any such gross violation exists, in the present case. In the face of the inspection report to which we have referred to in detail, the petitioner is found to have largely observed all norms under the Act and the Rules. The observation to the contrary made in the impugned communication is plainly unfounded and perverse. As to the other matters, appropriate directions should have been issued for compliance.
29. For the above reasons, the impugned communication dated 30.09.2020 cannot stand and is accordingly set aside. The District Magistrate is directed to consider the petitioner's claim for renewal of approval, in light of the observations made above and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks therefrom. In that regard, the petitioners may file a proper application to establish the fact of their continuing to comply with the Act, the Rules and the Scheme. That application may be filed within one month from today along with a copy of this order. The District Magistrate shall take a decision thereon. As for the Respondent no.5, no relief is granted against that respondent. We allow both facilities to exist. However, as to the forty seven inmates originally housed at the old age home set up by the petitioner, their views may govern their admission at either of the facilities.
30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradeseh, by the Registrar General of this Court for his knowledge and issuance of necessary directions to all concerned in the State of Uttar Pradesh for necessary action and compliance.
31. We may make it clear that the present order has not been passed to prohibit the respondents from cancelling any approval granted to any old age home but to confine those proceedings to the extreme cases where such action becomes necessary and unavoidable for any reason as discussed in this order, or otherwise.
32. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
33. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Prakhar