Navin Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3469 of 2024
======================================================
Navin Kumar S/o Shree Uma Shankar Pathak, Resident of Near Station Road,
Petrol Pump, Post-Dumrao, P.S.Dumrao, District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar.
2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Adv.
Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Rathour, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Srivastava, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Anjaneya Singh, AC to AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following relief:
"That this writ application is being filed on
behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the
decision taken in the 14th meeting of the
selection committee instituted under the Jvenile
Justice Act dated 07.11.2023 whereby on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
2/8
basis of the enquiry report submitted by the
District Magistrate, Buxar the petitioner has
been discharged from his duty as a member of
the Child Welfare Committee and has been
further debarred from any future engagement in
any child welfare scheme."
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, Navin
Kumar, was appointed as a Member of the Child Welfare
Committee, Buxar for a period of three years in the year 2020,
and thereafter was deputed for training at Chanakya National
Law University, Patna. During the tenure of the Committee,
upon detection of corporal punishment inflicted upon a child at
the Juvenile Care Home, Buxar, an enquiry was conducted by
the District Magistrate, Buxar which led to the removal of the
then Additional Director, Child Protection Unit, the Child
Protection Officer and the Counsellor. Thereafter, a show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his
reply. Meanwhile, pursuant to a notification inviting
applications for constitution of The Juvenile Justice Board, the
petitioner applied for the vacancy at Buxar. On the basis of the
enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Buxar, the
Selection Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act,
in its 14th meeting, decided to debar the petitioner from future

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
3/8
engagement in any child welfare scheme, and thereafter the
petitioner's candidature for the Juvenile Justice Board was
consequently rejected on the ground of “debarred by selection
committee”.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner had no knowledge of the enquiry or of the
decision taken against him till the issuance of the notice dated
05.12.2023 rejecting his candidature for the Juvenile Justice
Board, and that despite repeated RTI applications, the petitioner
was furnished a copy of the proceedings of the 14th meeting of
the Selection Committee dated 07.11.2023, along with the
District Magistrate's letter no. 1590 dated 18.10.2023, only on
01.01.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that though a show-cause notice, was issued to the petitioner,
and though the petitioner submitted his detailed reply thereto, no
show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner on the basis
of the subsequent enquiry report submitted by the District
Magistrate, Buxar, before the Director, Social Welfare
Department passed the final order of debarment and that neither
the said enquiry report nor the final order of debarment was ever
communicated to the petitioner; further the debarment, having

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
4/8
been passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording
him any opportunity to meet the findings of the enquiry report,
is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is
liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly
submitted that he restricts his prayer to the debarment of the
petitioner for future engagement in any child welfare scheme
which amounts to the debarment for unlimited or indefinite
period which is illegal and impermissible under the law.
6. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 &
2 submitted that the Selection Committee has been constituted
under the Juvenile Justice Rules, chaired by Hon'ble (Retd.)
Justice Mridula Mishra, former Judge of this Hon'ble Court,
along with five other members, for selection and performance
appraisal of Social Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards and
Child Welfare Committees and that the complaints against the
Members of the Child Welfare Committee are enquired into by
the concerned District Magistrate, on whose recommendation
suitable and legal action is taken by the Selection Committee;
and that the petitioner's own selection was earlier made on the
recommendation of the same Selection Committee.
7. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that
two consecutive enquiries were conducted at the district level,

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
5/8
and the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Buxar was
made after affording the petitioner full opportunity in
accordance with the principles of natural justice; that the
decision of the Selection Committee, to debar the petitioner
under Section 27(1)(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be said to be arbitrary
or illegal; and, reliance was placed upon the decision of a
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Kumari Sunita Singh
& Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors . (C.W.J.C. No. 16693 of 2017),
read with the analogous case of Amresh Kumar Srivastava &
Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (C.W.J.C. No. 14826 of 2018), it
was further submitted that the Members of the Child Welfare
Committee are meant to look after the welfare of children and
not their own welfare, and that the present writ petition has been
filed only with a vested interest and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submitted
that the Selection Committee has been constituted by the State
Government under Section 87 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2017, with a retired
Judge of this Hon'ble Court as its Chairperson and that the
matter was reported by the Additional Director, Child Protection
Unit, Buxar to the Director, Social Welfare Department, and by

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
6/8
the District Magistrate, Buxar, pursuant to which the Director,
directed an enquiry under Section 27(10) of the Juvenile Justice
Act after which a three-member enquiry committee was
constituted by the District Magistrate, Buxar and that the
enquiry committee's report was prepared after hearing all the
then Members of the Child Welfare Committee, including the
petitioner, who appeared and represented themselves.
9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 further
submitted that the petitioner's show-cause reply was found
unsatisfactory and that the debarment of the petitioner by which
the petitioner, along with the then Chairperson and two other
Members of the Child Welfare Committee, Buxar, were
debarred from future engagement in child-related work was
neither arbitrary nor in violation of the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as due opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner; and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is fit
to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the parties and perused the record. It
is important to discuss the law of debarment for an unlimited
period. Under settled Indian Jurisprudence, the Apex Court has
firmly established that an executive or statutory authority cannot
ban a person or entity indefinitely as it constitutes a form of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
7/8
‘civil death’ and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s. Kulja Industries
Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project,
BSNL and Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 , held that while
authorities have the right to debar or blacklist an entity, such
debarment must be for a specific, definite period. Further, in
M/s Mars Developers and suppliers v The State of Odisha
[SLP(C) No. 7861/2023], the Apex court reiterated this position
and held that, “while debarment has been recognized as a
method of disciplining deviant suppliers, an order of debarment
can never be for an indefinite period.”
12. In the light of the above discussion, it is evident
that debarment cannot be for an indefinite period, as it violates
the doctrine of proportionality. Hence, the impugned order dated
07.11.2023 is set aside to the extent it debars the petitioners
from future engagement in any child welfare scheme.
13. In view of the aforesaid observations, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent not to
debar the petitioner from participating in future engagements
relating to child-related schemes.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3469 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
8/8
14. Pending I.A’s if any stands disposed of.

(Alok Kumar, J)
Anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 31.07.2026
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date NA