MEMORANDUM OF WRIT APPEAL

(Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATHI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Writ Appeal No. of 2025

In

WP.No. 26228 of 2024

Between

Child Protection Network (CPN)

Represented by its Coordinator Chittumuri Nani Babu
Aged about 42 years S/o Rooben
R/o H No 122 SC Colony Prathipadu Mandal VTC
Chintaluru Post Chintaluru Village Parathipadu
East Godavari District
…Appellant/Writ petitioner

And

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Represented by its

Commissioner Cum Spl Secretary Department of Women
Development and Child Welfare AP Secretariat Velagapudi
Amaravathi Guntur District
2. The Director Women Development and Child Welfare
Department of Andhra Pradesh Dr No 31265/4A Govt
Observation Home For Boys Premises Near Kabela Centre
Rotary Nagar Vijayawada 520012 NTR District erstwhile
Krishna District
3. The District Collector and Magistrate Kakinada District
erstwhile East Godavari District
4. The District Women and Child Welfare and Empowered Officer
Anakapalli District erstwhile East Godavari district
5. The Joint Director Social Welfare Department Kakinada
Kakinada District Erstwhile Godavari District The Additional
District Probation Officer JWCS and WSC Department Kakinada
Kakinada District erstwhile East Godavari District
 6. The District Child Protection Officer Kakinada District erstwhile
East Godavari District
7. The Chairperson Child Welfare Committee Rajamahendravaram
Kakinada District erstwhile East Godavari District
…Respondents

The address for service of all notices and summons of process to the
above-named appellants is that of their Counsel M/s J. SUDHEER
(3243), THEODORE JONNALAGADDA, A. D. STEFFE DELIGHTA,
BANDLA NAGAMANI, A. PRAHAS SARIGALA, K. YAMINI
NIKITHA Advocates, Office at Door No.26-2-13, Opp: Police Petrol
Bunk, Nagarampalem, Guntur-522001, Andhra Pradesh State.

The address for the respondents is the same as

mentioned in the above cause title
Aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2024 passed in

WP.No.26228 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner herein

begs to file this Memorandum of Writ Appeal.

GROUNDS

1. That the learned single judge gravely erred both on facts and in

law.

2. That the learned single judge gravely erred in misconstruing the

scope and prayer of the writ petition

3. That the learned single judge gravely erred in disposing the writ

petition on 15.11.2024 without directing the respondents to file

their counter affidavit

4. That the learned single judge gravely erred in disposing of the

above writ petition without proper application of mind though the

issue pertained to poor children and their safety

5. That the learned single judge was expected to consider whether

the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of

children) Act 2015 is applicable or not, which the single utterly

failed.

6. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the whole

case of the petitioner is that the members of the petitioner do not

fall within the meaning of "Child in need of care and protection"

and/or that they do not fall within the meaning of "Child in conflict

with law", however instead of addressing the said issue the whole

case was misdirected which led to miscarriage of justice.

7. That the learned single judge gravely erred in directing the

petitioner to submit appropriate applications for registration

under the respondent authorities on prescribed format along with

relevant documents meaning thereby a situation has arisen now

that by an order of this Hon'ble court petitioner/its members are

obligated/mandated to submit applications when the whole case

is that they do not come within the meaning of the said

expressions and that the respondents are insisting that they

come under the purview of the act.

8. That the learned single judge gravely erred making petitioners

position much vulnerable in as much as earlier respondent

authorities were insisting that petitioner and its members shall

apply for registration under sec 41 of the Act which the

 petitioners are aggrieved of and when the petitioners approach

the Hon’ble court that such insistence is contrary to the above

act, without examining the legal and factual scenario the learned

single judge directed the petitioner to approach the authorities for

registration meaning thereby their position became back towards.

9. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the very

purpose of the writ petitioner approaching this Hon'ble court is to

get away from the registration process under the above Act in as

much as they do not fall withing the meaning of child care

institutions, whereas the learned single judge without any

discussion either on facts or in law dragged them under the Act

and made them amenable under the Act leading to miscarriage of

justice.

10. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the

petitioner and its members are running hostels with the consent

of the parents in the teeth of their poverty and by no stretch of

imagination they come within the meaning of "Child in need of

care and protection" and/or "child in conflict with law"

11. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the

above said two categories of children, if they are housed in a

particular institution then they come within the meaning of Child

care institutions and that only such child care institutions shall be

registered under the Act.

12. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that when

the children housed in the of the petitioner and its members

institutions, the question of authorities insisting them to come

within the meaning of Child Care Institutions is beyond their

jurisdiction and the respondent authorities have no authority to

go beyond their brief.

13. That the learned single judge gravely erred in expanding the

meaning of the above definitions that too without discussion

meaning thereby the entities which do not come under the

purview of the Act are sought to be dragged under the Act which

is impermissible.

14. That the learned single judge gravely erred in falling in line

with the understanding of the respondents which is totally

contrary to law and a plain reading of the language.

15. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate the

definitions of sec 2(13) and sec 2(14) dealing with the above two

expressions and the said definitions do not include hostels run by

charitable institutions for poor students and that neither they are

in conflict with law nor they are in need of care and protection as

defined.

16. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate the

difference between the above two definitions and the children

falling within the meaning of the said definitions and the children
 falling within the meaning of poor students/poor children with

poor parents either one or two, who need to be educated and who

need care and provision but not care and protection.

17. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that every

child who is not at their residences and who are in some

institutions (hostels) either paid or unpaid do not come within the

purview of the Act.

18. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the

respondent authorities cannot extended their tentacles and their

power and authority over the entities which are not in the purview

under the Act.

19. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that Act

confines the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities only to

certain type of institutions dealing with certain types of children

and the respondent authorities without appreciating the content

and language of the Act cannot expand their jurisdiction over and

above the institutions which are beyond their pale.

20. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the Child

Protection Network (CPN) had submitted representation to the

Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department,

Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting proper implementation

of JJ (C&P) Act, 2015 and Regulatory guidelines of NCPCR for

registration of Educational Hostels.

21. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate, the order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 34141 of 2018 through which

the court directed the Respondents to consider the explanation of

the petitioner, and pass necessary orders by considering

objections raised by the petitioner and also directed that, no

coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner till passing of

such orders.

22. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate that the

respondents in spite of this order from the Hon’ble High Court in

effect, have been exercising authority beyond their jurisdiction.

23. That the learned single judge ought to have appreciated that

by virtue of the judgement the petitioner has fallen into fire from

frying pan.

24. That the learned single judge failed to appreciate the ground

that the national commission for protection of child rights has

categorically stated in its regulatory guidelines that hostels for

the children would not fall under the purview of Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and in the guidelines

however the commission insisted for how the conditions should

be in the hostels which will clinch the issue that hostels run for

the children need to dealt separately but not under the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.

25. That any other grounds would be raised at the time of

arguments.

26. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is

humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow

the Writ Appeal by setting-aside the Order dated 13.03.2024

passed in WP.No.15758 of 2022 and to pass such other order or

orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

Amaravathi,
Date: .12.2024. Counsel for the Appellant
 GUNTUR :: DISTRICT

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATHI

W.A.No. of 2025
in
W.P.No. 26228 of 2024

MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF
WRIT APPEAL

Filed on: .12.2025

Filed by:

M/s J. SUDHEER (3243)

SUSHMA YAGANTI
Y. SATYARTHA
CH. SAMSON
THEODORE JONNALAGADDA
A. STEFFE DELIGHTA
Advocates

Counsel for the Writ Appellants

9849026490
sudheer_jonnalagadda64@yahoo.com

Clerk - 9030720787
1. Notice put up on Board 2025 P.D./N.P.D. CODE NO.
2. Hearing fixed 2025 (Under Clause 15 of Letters Patents)

3. Record called for 2025 HIGH COURT

4. Process fee paid 2025 WRIT APPEAL
5. Notice sent to Respondent 2025
W.A. No. of 2025

GUNTUR :: DISTRICT
Against
W.P. No. 26228 of 2024

Before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Amaravathi

Child Protection Network

…Appellants
By
Mr. J. SUDHEER (3243)
Advocate
Counsel for the Appellant

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh & Others.

…Respondents

In the Petition Presented

Lower Plaint
Court

Date of order :

In the Presented 2025

High Represented on 2025
Court Filed on 2025
Admitted on 2025

To be heard on