Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Aman Satya Kachroo Trust vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 25 April, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 05.02.2025
Pronounced on 25.04.2025
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Aman Satya Kachroo Trust .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Kachroo is present
on behalf of the petitioner trust
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
<
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Kachroo, representing the petitioner-trust, had
submitted that at first instance the WP(C) No. 1554/2022 and WP(C)
No. 1725/2022 be considered, accordingly, both these writ petitions
were heard together and as such, are being disposed of by a common
judgment.
WP(C) No. 1554/2022
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Trust for quashing the
advertisement dated 05.07.2022 (in the advertisement, the date of
notification has been mentioned as 21.06.2022 and published on
04.07.2022) for employment of staff on contractual basis for One Stop
Center (OSC) and further for directing the Monitoring Committee for
OSCs formed by the Government of J&K under Government Order
No. 1107 JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 14.12.2020 to submit an
2
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
independent evaluation report to this Court on all OSCs of J&K
including the OSC of Jammu. Another petition bearing WP(C)
No.1725/2022 has been filed by the petitioner-trust for quashing the
order dated 04.08.2022 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby
operation of OSC being run by the petitioner-trust has been closed,
with a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner-trust
to run OSC at Jammu.
3. The petitioner-trust claims to be a non-profit, non-governmental
organisation, working to provide access to justice to women, children
and marginalised sections of India. The petitioner-trust further claims
to have managed the integrated system of 181 WHL and OSCs in
Chattisgarh for 6 years, Assam for 2 years and J&K for 3 years.The
petitioner-trust also claims that it has dealt 25,593 cases of violence
against women, out of which almost 50% of the cases were of
domestic violence.
4. It is stated that One Stop Centre is a scheme of access to justice that
provides women victims of violence with access to criminal justice
system without facing secondary victimisation. The scheme was
launched in year 2015. The OSC of Jammu was established by the
petitioner-trust in the year 2018. It has been further stated that the
OSC, Jammu has been established in a prime property in the centre of
Jammu city (New Plot), which is easy to access by public transport,
near to hospital & court complex and has advanced IT infrastructure.
It has an integrated system comprising NALSA 15100 helpline, 181
WHL, NALSA-SLC, DLSAs and OSCs and MSK (Mahila Shakti
3
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Kender) is also located in the same premises. The petitioner-trust has
provided the total number of cases registered with OSC since its
inception and the subsequent action taken to demonstrate that the OSC
Jammu was the best performing OSC in India.
5. It is stated that issuance of advertisement in the newspapers on
05.07.2022by the District Social Welfare Officer, Jammu,
demonstrates the intention of the respondents to close the most
successful OSC of Jammu and Kashmir and the respondent No. 1 is
planning a sham operation in the name of OSC as respondent No. 1
intends to set up a new OSC in an unhygienic building that is far from
the Jammu city with no facility of public transport and without any
infrastructure, more particularly the IT infrastructure. Further, the
respondent No. 1 intends to operate the new OSC without
recommended system software i.e. Raipur Software and with the help
of new “inexperienced and sifarshi contractual staff”, therefore, the
decision of respondent No.1 will result in complete destruction of
OSC and cause enormous damage to 181 Women Help Line.
6. Precisely, the stand of the petitioner-trust is that the OSC being
operated by the petitioner-trust is one of the best OSCs in the country
and it has employed the best men and material for operating the OSC
and on the contrary, if the respondents are permitted to go ahead with
the advertisement issued on 05.07.2022 for employing the contractual
staff for OSC at Jammu, it would result in closure of the best
functioning OSC of the petitioner-trust, which would not be in the
public interest.
4
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
7. The respondents have filed their objections to the writ petition stating
therein that the petitioner-trust has not arrayed the District Social
Welfare Officer Jammu and Chairman, OSC Jammu (Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu) as respondents being necessary parties,
therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is further stated
that the Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner through
its founder Trustee, Prof. Rajender Kachroo, claiming the failure of
One Stop Centers and Women Help Line (WHL) scheme and the
consequent effect to public interest in the J&K and now in the present
petition, the so called public interest projected by the petitioner in PIL
has now been converted into the self-interest of the petitioner-trust. It
is also stated that the petitioner-trust has filed ten petitions including
the contempt petitions with the sole aim and object of forcing the
Government to allot all contracts to the petitioner in whole of the UT
of J&K, to the exclusion of other agencies. The modus operandi of the
petitioner is that wherever any agency other than the petitioner is
selected through due process, the petitioner approaches the High Court
challenging the authority and capability of the Government with
unsubstantiated and ill-founded allegations and casts aspersions on the
Government and its officials. In fact, the petitioner aims to
monopolise the OSCs in the whole of UT of J&K by claiming that no
other agency/authority has the capability, expertise, infrastructure,
software etc to run the OSCs effectively, as compared to the
petitioner.
5
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
8. It is further stated that as per the Guideline 10.1 of the implementation
guidelines for the One Stop Center, issued by the Government of India
in April 2015, the State/UT Government has to submit proposal for
setting up of One Stop Center to the Ministry of Women and Child
Development and funds for the running of these centers, are
transferred directly to DMs/DCs by Government of India. As per
Guideline 10.2, all proposals received from the State/UT Government
are accepted and sanctioned for grant under the scheme by Programme
Approval Board, constituted in the Ministry of Women and Child
Development. As per Guideline 10.4, the DCs/DMs have been
assigned all the major responsibilities of the selection of location of
the establishment, staff recruitment, coordination with different
stakeholders’ performance appraisal, reporting etc. It is, therefore, not
understandable on which ground, the petitioner is challenging the
impugned advertisement notification. Guideline 10.4.2 allows the
DCs/DMs led district task force to either undertake staff recruitment
on their own or alternatively decide outsourcing of activities required
for functioning of center by any implementing agency, preferably
having valid/relevant experience. The guidelines nowhere mandate the
DM/DC to run the center through an NGO/outsourcing agency, let
alone a single entity to run all OSCs in the UT as the petitioner
desires. It is further stated that the erstwhile State Government vide
Government order No.971-GAD of 2016 dated 06.09.2016 constituted
two committees, namely, State Steering and Monitoring Committee
under the chairmanship of Administrative Secretary, Social Welfare
6
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Department, to monitor and evaluate the functioning of OSCs every
six months and the District Level Management Committee constituted
under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner of the District
concerned to scrutinize and monitor overall management of the OSC.
Further, in order to implement the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India issued in WP(C) No. 565/2012, tilted, “Nipun Saxena
and another vs. Union of India“, the Government vide its order dated
1107-JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 14.12.2020 constituted a Committee
under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary to Government, Social
Welfare Department, to finalise the arrangements for implementation
of guidelines regarding setting up of OSCs in every district for
monitoring the prevention and protection of women from sexual abuse
at public, private or work places in UT of J&K. It is further averred
that the petitioner-trust, in fact, is interested in monetary benefits
whereas the object and concept of OSC is much large and wide. It is
submitted that for the establishment of 12 OSCs approved in the year,
2018-2019, Mission Directorate floated a request for proposals for
establishing OSC for women, as such, the Committee constituted for
that purpose vide order dated 30.04.2020 selected the petitioner-trust
to run all the 12 OSCs, however, the petitioner failed to comply with
the terms and conditions laid down in the empanelment order vis-a-vis
establishment of OSCs within the stipulated time and even did not
approach the respondents for extension of time, thus, leading to
cancellation of the contract assigned to him. It is also stated that
keeping in view the directions of the Ministry of Women and Child
7
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Welfare, Government of India and in terms of guidelines of the
scheme regarding establishment of the OSCs, the charge of 12 OSCs
was handed over to the officials of ICPS/ICDS as an interim
arrangement. The UT Government opted for this interim arrangement
only because of impediments created by the petitioner-trust. As on
date, 21 OSCs are operational and 7 OSCs are working on full time
basis and 13 on interim arrangement with additional charge to District
ICPS officers. The centers working on interim arrangement are being
managed by the District Social Welfare Officer, who are the senior
and responsible officers of JKAS grade. Till date, in the Districts,
assistance has been provided to 6941 women and One Women Help
Line 181 is operational and has assisted in more than 5000 cases. It is
the further stand of the respondents that the software which the
petitioner claims to possess is not something unique and outstanding
but can be developed by any good software developer and the
Department is already in the process of developing the same and it
would be able to achieve it very shortly as the tendering process is
bound to take some time. The respondents have mentioned the details
of the cases handled by the OSCs for various districts of UT of J&K
and the respondents have stated that there has been a surge in the
registration of cases due to awareness among women about their
rights. However, in both the cities the disposal is very less by the
concerned OSCs which are being controlled by the petitioner as
compared to other districts.
8
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
9. It is stated that the advertisement notification dated 21.06.2022 was
issued for employment of staff on contractual basis. Vide order dated
20.08.2018, Special Secretary to Government, SWD/State Mission
Director, State Resource Center for Women, Civil Secretariat
Srinagar, approved the bidders for establishment of OSCs in different
districts. As per this order, the petitioner was also selected for the
establishment of OSCs for women in Jammu and Leh Districts. In this
order, it has been specifically mentioned that the outsourcing for
establishment of OSCs to the selected firms is subject to the signing of
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with certain terms and
conditions. The petitioner has executed MoU with Deputy
Commissioner, Leh for establishment of OSC for Women in Leh
District, whereas the petitioner has not signed any MoU in respect of
establishment of OSC in District Jammu. It is further stated that the
Mahila Shakti Kendra has been functional at Channi Himmat, Jammu
for the last more than one month, which is being run by the Social
Welfare Department in the Government Building. The officials have
identified the suitable place for OSC in the above said building
located at Channi Himmat, Jammu. The petitioner has no locus to
challenge the impugned notification as none of the rights of the
petitioner have been violated.
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
10. In this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated
04.08.2022, whereby respondent No. 2 has directed the closure of
OSC Jammu run by the petitioner with immediate effect. It is stated
9
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
by the petitioner that despite the status quo order passed by this Court
in WP(C) No.1554/2022, the order impugned has been passed which
is not only contemptuous in nature but is also violative of principle of
natural justice.
11. It is urged by the petitioner that the order impugned is unreasoned,
occupied with mala fide and arbitrary in nature because the OSC
Jammu is not only the best OSC in the Jammu and Kashmir but also
amongst the best OSCs in India, as it has fully trained and best staff,
best software (Raipur) and compatible hardware. It is further stated
that the order impugned is not in public interest and the respondent
No. 2 does not have the IT infrastructure to operate the OSC
effectively. It is also contended by the petitioner-trust that the
participation of petitioner-trust is necessary for implementation of
OSC in Jammu.
12. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the order
impugned dated 04.08.2022 has been passed in accordance with law
and there is no infringement of any right of the petitioner and further
that the respondents have not committed any contempt of the order of
the High Court, as the respondents are well within their power to run
the center in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government of
India in this regard. There is no mala fide intention in closing the OSC
run by the petitioner, which has outlived the tenure of contract.
Besides, the power to deal with the functioning of OSC is saved by the
operative part of the order of the High Court. The respondents have
10
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
reiterated the averments/contentions made/raised by them in their
response to WP(C) No. 1554/2022.
13. The respondents have stated that the experience of the petitioner
cannot be an overriding factor on the authority of the Government, as
envisaged in the guidelines, with regard to taking over functioning of
the OSCs. The petitioner’s efforts may be worth appreciation but the
petitioner’s energy and efforts cannot match the power, ability and
capability of the Government to take the appropriate measures in
consultation with experts in the field which may even include the
representative of the petitioner also but the will and wishes of the
petitioner cannot be thrusted upon the Government to take any
particular decision for Women and Child Welfare. It is further stated
that the software, which the petitioner claims to possess, has denied
access to their OSCs, in derogation of the guidelines, as such, creating
a vacuum in the integration of the system. Such software which
ensures inter-agency coordinated response to every complainant/issue
received in any of the OSCs, has to be under the control of the
Government and not an individual or an NGO and, therefore, the
department is getting the same prepared at the centralised level. The
department is already in the process of developing the same and it will
be able to achieve it within reasonable time. The software of the
petitioner is actually a software used for integrating 181 women
helpline with OSCs in the UT of J&K so that the case of every woman
who call the Women Help Line in case of need, gets automatically
linked to the concerned OSC and other agencies like Police, Legal
11
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Services Authority etc. As per the mandate of scheme, 181 Helpline is
supposed to integrate with all OSCs in Union Territory and that is the
service for which, the petitioner is being paid by the Government, but
the petitioner has denied access to 181 software to the OSCs being run
by the agencies other than the petitioner, thereby monopolizing the
service. The petitioner is using the software as a tool to coerce the
Government to outsource the running of all OSCs to the petitioner. In
doing so, he has not only violated the scheme and guidelines but has
also indulged into financial irregularities.
14. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the
change of HR Policy from outsourced services HR Model to
DSWO/Full time contract staff HR model does not stand the test of
reasonableness as the DSWO HR Policy does not have access to the
software that is required to implement OSC, as such, the change of
policy is arbitrary because the respondents have not disclosed as to
why they want to change the HR policy and why they want to close a
functional OSC, which is amongst the best in India. The outsourced
services HR Model supports effective implementation of Art 39(A) of
the Constitution. OSC implemented with DSWO HR Model will not
be integrated with the NALSA 15100 sub system. The founder trustee
of the petitioner trust is a highly experienced software architect and
change of policy, caused by the impugned order, does not permit
citizens involvement in implementation of OSCs. The petitioner has
done excellent job for four years and the society needs its services for
many more years to come. The petitioner has implemented OSC
12
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Jammu for the past four years and the respondents have denied the
petitioner the right to practice his profession under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.
15. Besides the above rejoinder, the petitioner has also filed a common
rejoinder to the aforesaid both the petitions, in which the petitioner has
mentioned in tabulated form 3 Models i.e. Model A, Model B and
Model C with the peculiar features and characteristics. The table is
extracted as under:
Model A Model B Model C
1. Human Activities are Full time Contract Same as Model
Resources outsourced to trained staffs are B, Full time
service providers. employed by the Contract Staff
Scheme does not scheme. are employed by
employ any staff. the scheme.
2. Implementing A governmental or a Government NGO is
Agency (IA) non-governmental official responsible for
agency responsible for DC/DSWO is establishing &
establishing & responsible for operating the
operating the Centre. establishing & Centre.
IA operates like a operating the
management Centre.
consultancy. It is
entitled only to an
agreed fee.
3. Software Software is provided Software is Software is
by IA. provided by provided by the
The recommended government. Government.
software is the Raipur The Sakhi Dash
ERP/CRM Software. Board Software or
the C-DAC
Software.
16. The petitioner has stated that the transition from Model A to Model B
is arbitrary, as the said model has been operated successfully for the
last five long years and the Model B and Model C, are irrational and it
is not possible to achieve the object of OSC with Model B. The
petitioner has given the data for the purpose of demonstrating that the
13
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Model A is better than Model B and Model B & Model C in fact have
failed.
17. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Kachroo, representing the petitioner-trust has
argued that order dated 04.08.2022 could not have been passed in
view of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1554/2022 and
the action of the respondents for operating OSCs themselves is not
only irrational but against the public interest, particularly when the
OSC operated by the petitioner-trust in Jammu was declared as one of
the best OSCs in whole of the India. He has further argued that the
documents placed on record clearly establish that the petitioner-trust
has done great work towards implementation of the programme of the
Central Government for running OSC for the welfare and protection
of women. He has further argued that merely the fact that the Mission
Shakti has replaced the earlier scheme/programme, still it would not
have any effect on the running of OSC as the goals of the scheme have
remained unchanged.
18. Per contra, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG representing
respondents has argued that these writ petitions are actuated with
profit motive and in order to enhance the business & self-interest,
these writ petitions have been filed. He has placed much reliance on
the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in PIL decided on
29.08.2022. He has also argued that the guidelines for the
implementation of the policy/programme for welfare of the women in
respect of the functioning of OSCs, continued to change and new
guidelines were issued in the year, 2017 and with effect from
14
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
01.04.2022, Mission Shakti, an Umbrella Mission, has been launched
which covers the schemes for welfare of the women and children. He
has vehemently argued that it is for the respondents to see how to run
the welfare schemes and the petitioner-trust cannot dictate terms to the
respondents. He has also argued that there is no written agreement
between the petitioner and the respondents for operating the One Stop
Center at Jammu and even in case of agreement, the period cannot be
beyond two years and, as such, the present writ petitions are
misconceived.
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
20. The petitioner claims to have managed and operated the integrated
system of 181 WHL and OSCs in Chhattisgarh for 6 years, in J&K for
3 years and in Assam for 2 years. To a specific query put by this
Court, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Kachroo, representing petitioner-trust,
stated that at present the petitioner-trust is not operating any scheme
either in Chhattisgarh or Assam.
21. Taking into consideration the recommendations made by a Committee
constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice J. S. Verma after
Nirbhaya’s case, integrated schemes, a Women Help Line (WHL) and
One Stop Center (OSC) came into existence.
22. The petitioner-trust vide order dated 20.08.2018 issued by the
respondents was permitted to establish One Stop Center at Jammu and
Leh. The order provided for execution and signing of Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with certain terms and conditions. The
petitioner has placed on record the MoU executed between the
15
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
petitioner-trust and Deputy Commissioner, Leh, for establishment and
operation of OSC at Leh, however, no such MoU has been executed
for the purpose of establishment and operation of OSC in District
Jammu which is evident from the communication dated 16.10.2018
addressed to the District Development Commissioner, Jammu, by the
petitioner.
23. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was allowed to
establish and operate the OSC in & for Jammu. The petitioner has
placed on record the standard Memorandum of Understanding to be
executed by the Deputy Commissioners of the Districts concerned. A
perusal of the MoU entered into between the petitioner and the
Deputy Commissioner, Leh, and the standard MoU placed on record
reveals that the Memorandum of Understanding was to remain valid
for one year from the date of signing of the MoU and after completion
of six months, the Government was required to review the functioning
of the OSC for women for further extension of MoU for one year. The
Government had reserved the right to terminate the MoU by giving
thirty days’ notice in writing to the second party. Notwithstanding the
fact that no MoU was executed between the petitioner and the
respondents for establishing and operating the OSC at Jammu, the
petitioner established and continued with the operation of the OSC
beyond the stipulated period of one year and even beyond the
maximum period of permissible extension of one year.
24. The petitioner in WP(C) No.1554/2022 has impugned the
advertisement notice dated 21.06.2022 and this Court vide its order
16
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
dated 29.07.2022, directed maintenance of status quo but without
prejudice to the rights of the respondents to deal with and determining
the functioning of the petitioner’s OSC. The petitioner has not been
able to place on record any documentary evidence demonstrating that
the petitioner was allowed to operate the OSC in Jammu even beyond
the period of two years and the Court while passing the interim
direction, had observed that the main issue which arises in this petition
is that once sanctioned OSC for Jammu District has been assigned to
the petitioner for its functioning, then how the respondent No. 1,
without first putting the petitioner to notice to wind up, can proceed
ahead with the exercise of establishment of a parallel OSC at Jammu
District. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.08.2022, the respondent No. 2
directed closure of the OSC of the petitioner on the ground that the
Government has decided to operate the OSC for women on its own
and not through the petitioner-trust.
25. The petitioner-trust has impugned the order dated 04.08.2022 on the
ground that the same is in violation of the interim directions dated
29.07.2022 issued in WP(C) No. 1554/2022 and the decision of the
respondents is arbitrary, irrational and against the public interest. So
far as the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 04.08.2022
is violative of order dated 29.07.2022 is concerned, it is evident that
this Court in WP(C) No.1554/2022 vide order dated 29.07.2022, as
already mentioned above, had observed that without first putting the
petitioner to the notice to windup, how an exercise for setting up a
parallel OSC can be allowed. The petitioner was operating the OSC
17
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
beyond the maximum stipulated period without any express written
consent but with the tacit consent of the respondents. The petitioner-
trust cannot claim to have a vested right to operate the OSC beyond
the period of one year but in the instant case the petitioner has
operated the OSC even beyond the permissible period of extension.
By virtue of order dated 04.08.2022, the closure of OSC being run by
the petitioner-trust was ordered on the ground that the Government
itself wanted to run the same. The order of the closure cannot be said
to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner-trust, particularly when
none of the rights of the petitioner to run the trust have been violated.
The petitioner cannot be heard to say that it can run OSC for an
indefinite period. In case of closure of OSC of the petitioner during
the currency of the MoU, the petitioner-trust could have raised an
objection with regard to the closure of its One Stop Center during the
currency of the period in terms of MoU, which never was executed
between the parties. Once the respondents have decided to run the
OSC themselves, the petitioner cannot challenge that decision on the
ground that the same is arbitrary and irrational.
26. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner-trust had earlier
filed a writ petition, wherein the petitioner had alleged that the quality
of 6 out of 8 OSCs being run in the erstwhile State of Jammu and
Kashmir was not up to the standard and the Division Bench of this
Court, dismissed the said PIL vide judgment dated 29.08.2022 with
the following observations:
“25. The respondents are not to be guided by any third party
such as the petitioner in the matter of implementation of the
18WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022WHL and OSCs and have to act only in accordance with the
guidelines laid down by the Government of India. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot demand that the Ministry be guided by its
suggestions or submissions.
26. In light of all that has been said above, we are of the view
that the petitioner being a prospective candidate having personal
interest in the establishment of OSCs in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir and having competitive interest is not entitled to
maintain a petition like this in public interest. The writ petition
otherwise also lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.”
27. A perusal of the abovementioned observations made by the Division
Bench, would reveal that the respondents are not to be guided by any
third party, such as the petitioner-trust, in the matter of
implementation of WHL and the OSCs have to act only in accordance
with the directions of the Government of India. As per the guidelines
issued in December, 2017, in terms of Clause 10.1, at the State/U.T
level, the Department of Women and Child Development was required
to formulate a proposal for establishment of OSC for its submission to
the Ministry of Women and Child Development for approval and the
Ministry of Women and Child Development was to transfer the funds
to the concerned District Collector/District Magistrate directly after
obtaining due approvals.
28. Further, Clause 10.3 of the guidelines provided that the overall
implementation of OSC scheme would require the establishment of
OSC in each district. The State/UT, Department of Women, Child
Development/Social Welfare Department was to ensure the
constitution of task force, to be chaired by the District Collector or
District Magistrate of the concerned district. The task force was/is to
be headed by the District Collector/District Magistrate of the
respective District and the function of task force in terms of clause
19
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
10.4.1 of the guidelines includes the identification of location or land
for setting up of the OSC by the District Collector or by the District
Magistrate concerned. Further, the function of the task force is to
make suitable, viable arrangements for running the center, to
undertake OSC staff requirement in a fair and transparent manner or
alternatively decide outsourcing activities required for functioning of
OSC by an implementing agency, preferably having valid/relevant
experience in dealing with the issues related to gender issues, women
survivors of violence, sexual assault and violence against women. The
task force further has a mandate to appoint/recruit/select empanelled
agencies/individual to provide legal counselling, medical aid/social
counselling, in terms of clause 10.4.2 of the guidelines of 2017.
Further in terms of clause 10.6, for smooth functioning of OSC, the
State Government has been granted liberty to outsource the manpower
to carry out activities required for functioning of center, such as center
demonstrator, case worker, dispatch rider, legal assistance, medical
assistance, counselling, IT, MIS Operator, multipurpose, security etc.
29. In terms of clause 11.3 of the guidelines of 2017, the District Collector
or District Magistrate has to provide induction training to all the
personnel involved in the functioning of OSC and for that purpose, he
is required to coordinate with various departments so that the people
providing services at OSCs and those belonging to various
departments could be sensitized and trained in handling the issues.
20
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
30. Thereafter, in the year 2022, there was paradigm shift in the form of
integration of the schemes being run for the welfare of the women and
children and one common scheme nomenclated as “Mission Shakti”
was launched. It is an amalgam of two schemes, i.e. Sambal and
Samarth. Sambal sub scheme is for safety and security of the women.
The existing schemes of OSC and WHL, Beti Bachao and Bati Padhao
have been included with modification in Sambal sub scheme. As per
the Standard Operating Procedure of Government of India, the
Ministry of Women and Child Welfare has issued guidelines of
Mission Shakti Scheme according to which, States and Districts will
execute 24×7 Women Help Line 181 service for women. The Women
Help Line Service shall be run in coordination with the State and
District functionary and integrated with the emergency response ERSS
112 Helpline of MHA and the role of technology solution provider has
been assigned to CDAC (Centre for Development of Advanced
Computing). The role of CDAC is to provide technology solution to
integrate Women Help Line 181 with ERSS 112, supply hardware and
commission the WHL Control Room in State/Union Territory. In fact,
under Mission Shakti, CDAC has been entrusted with the
responsibility of automation and integration of Women Helpline-181.
31. Mission Shakti contains an elaborate institutional arrangement at State
and District level. Women helpline under Mission Shakti scheme at
State level shall be run under the overall supervision of Add. Chief
Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary of Women and Child
Development/Social Justice & Empowerment of the State. State Level
21
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
Monitoring Committee of Mission Shakti Scheme headed by Chief
Secretary shall review the performance of Women Helpline. For OSC
at each district, the District Magistrate is a nodal agency to implement
Mission Shakti, whose responsibility is to supervise and monitor the
day-today WHL unit at OSC and coordinate with the rescue team with
allied police hospitals etc.
32. Under the SOPs, C-DAC has been assigned the major job of providing
training and capacity building besides reporting mechanism. Once the
Mission Shakti has replaced the earlier schemes and major
responsibility for providing technical assistance has been assigned to
C-DAC, the contentions raised by the petitioner-trust become
meaningless rather rendered infructuous.
33. The observations of the Division Bench, as mentioned above, that the
respondents are not to be guided by any third party i.e. the petitioner
in the matter of implementation of WHL and OSCs and have to act
only in accordance with the guidelines of the Government of India, are
very relevant in this case also. The petitioner cannot dictate the
respondents about the mode and manner in which the welfare schemes
are required to be implemented. The Mission Shakti is a
comprehensive scheme, having proper mechanism of implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of the welfare measures. Both Central as
well as State/U.T Governments have to act in tandem with each other
for proper implementation of Mission Shakti.
22
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
34. There is proper reporting mechanism, that has been put in place,
whereby the C-DAC has been assigned the job of generating data
enabling the policy decision making for the best interest of women
and further, State Level Monitoring Committee of Mission Shakti
Scheme has been put into place to be headed by the Chief Secretary to
review the performance of Women Help Line at the State level. The
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the
respondents cannot operate the OSC/WHL themselves. Merely
because the petitioner-trust has developed some software, does not
mean that the petitioner has an indefeasible right to operate OSC alone
in absence of any MoU between the petitioner and the respondents.
35. The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of
India is best suited to formulate and implement the schemes for the
welfare of the women and children and the petitioner-trust, which is
having an element of profit motive, cannot force the respondents to
run the OSC through the petitioner-trust.
36. It needs to be mentioned here that in Section 1 of WP(C) No.
1554/2022, it is stated that the petitioner is a non-profit and Non-
governmental Organization but strangely in the rejoinder filed by the
petitioner-trust, it is stated that the action of the respondents to change
the implementation of the methodology is violative of Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution. The petitioner-trust has specifically taken this plea
in ground (5) of the written submissions and rejoinder filed by the
petitioner and has further submitted that the impugned order has
23
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
resulted in denial of level playing field and the doctrine embodied in
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India provides for equally
placed competitors. It would be apt to observe that the respondents by
operating the OSCs themselves have not started new business by
ousting the petitioner. The scheme is solely for the welfare of women
and if the Government decides to operate OSC itself, it does not
amount to violation of any right of the petitioner-trust.
37. It is evident that the petitioner has vested interest and ulterior motive
to perpetuate the running of its OSC without any written authorization
and for that purpose only, the petitioner-trust has filed these petitions
impugning the advertisement dated 04.07.2022 and order dated
04.08.2022 for closure of operation of its OSC. The Ministry of
Women and Child Development, Government of India is the best
determiner and driver of the policy and practice for ensuring the
welfare of women and interference by the courts in such matters is not
warranted at all.
38. The relief sought through the medium of these writ petitions cannot be
granted on the mere asking of the petitioner-trust, particularly when
the relief sought by the petitioner is intended to perpetuate and
propagate its business-oriented interest under the guise of public
interest. The private business interest is always subordinate to public
interest and must make a way for public interest. This Court does not
find any illegality in the advertisement notice dated 21.06.2022 and
24
WP(C) No. 1554/2022 &
WP(C) No. 1725/2022
the order dated 04.08.2022, particularly when the petitioner-trust has
no vested right to run OSC in Jammu.
39. In view of what has been, discussed, considered and analysed
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that both the writ
petitions are misconceived and the same are, as such, dismissed.
40. List the connected petitions on 20.05.2025.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu:
25.04.2025
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/NoKARAM CHAND
2025.04.25 15:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link