Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/2 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 14 July, 2025

                                                                 Page No.# 1/20

GAHC010162542024




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:9026

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/4217/2024

         RAM CHANDRA GOSWAMI
         S/O LATE BHUDHAR GOSWAMI
         PERMANENT ADDRESS-
         H/NO. 7, REHABARI SUHAGPUR, (NEAR ARYA HOSPITAL), P.O. REHABARI,
         GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781008.
         TEMPORARY ADDRESS-C/O D CHOUDHURY,
         H/NO. 60, ASSAM POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.
         REHABARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781008
         D.O.B. 01-11-1955
         PHONE NO. 9954841507

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE DIRECTOR
          SENIOR CITIZEN WELFARE COUNCIL
         ASSAM
          SAURABH NAGAR
          BELTOLA TINIALI
          GUWAHATI-781006.

         3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE -CUM-MAINTENANCE OFFICER
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM-781028

         4:SRI BHASKAARJYOTI GOSWAMI
          S/O SRI RAM CHANDRA GOSWAMI
         PRESENTLY RESIDING IN HOUSE NO. 7. REHABARI SUHAGPUR (NEAR RJ
         HOSPITAL)
                                                                         Page No.# 2/20

            GUWAHATI
            DIST. KAMRUP (METRO)
            ASSAM-781008

           5:SMT. TRISHA GOSWAMI
           W/O SRI BHASKARJYOTI GOSWAMI
           PRESENTLY RESIDING IN HOUSEN O. 7
            REHABARI
            SUHAGPUR (NEAR RJ HOSPITAL)
            GUWAHATI
            DIST. KAMRUP (M)
           ASSAM-78100

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS S JAIN,MS M
ZOMUANPUII,MS. B SOREN,MRS J M KONWAR,MR J SINGH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A DEKA(R-4,5),MR A BHATRA (R-4,5),N

CHAUDHURY(R-4,5),MR. M DAS(R-4,5),MR. B D DEKA(R-4,5)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 14-07-2025

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. J. M. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The petitioner herein is a senior citizen aged about 70 years.

Earlier, the petitioner served as an Estate Officer under the Secondary Education Board of Assam (SEBA) and retired in the year 2015. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner owns a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas situated at Rehabari under Village - Sohar Ulubari Part-I of Mouza- Ulubari in the District of Kamrup (M), Page No.# 3/20

Assam. According to the petitioner on the said plot of land, the petitioner constructed a G+2 residential building, wholly and exclusively financed from his own resources and also by availing loans which he had fully repaid with interest.

3. It is his allegation that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are his son and daughter-in-law were living with him in the said house and they subjected the petitioner to physical and verbal assault and has also abused and harassed him. It is his further contention that in the aforesaid backdrop of harassment, he was forced to take refuge initially in a hotel and subsequently, he is living in a rented premise by paying a rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is his further contention that the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. AS-01-DJ-7026 has also been taken over by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner submitted an application under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens' Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2007) before the District Social Welfare-cum- Maintenance Officer i.e., the respondent No. 3, praying for maintenance and eviction of his son and daughter-in- law from the house as recorded hereinabove. However, the said application regarding maintenance was rejected on the ground that the petitioner, being a retired government employee, has sufficient means to maintain himself. So far, relating to eviction, it was rejected being a property dispute. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

Page No.# 4/20

5. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the affidavit, the allegation of harassment and eviction of the petitioner from his own house has been denied by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and they have taken a further stand that the petitioner, on his own volition, despite their earnest request, has left his residence. According to them, their father, who is 70 years of age, is influenced by some tantric and has been visiting many fortune tellers, locally and even outside the State of Assam, and the aforesaid tantric has polluted the mind of their father. It is their contention that their father could be suffering from some mental infirmity coupled with paranoia, and therefore, he is having misapprehensions about his son and daughter-in-law, which were unfounded and baseless. According to them, they are continuously insisting that the petitioner return home; however, due to the undue influence of certain unscrupulous tantric and fortune tellers, the same has not been materialized.

6. According to them, though there were mediations, the same also failed inasmuch as on every occasion, when the date of mediation was fixed, the petitioner refused to participate in the mediation proceedings and took a confrontational stance. It is their further case that they are ready to mediate with the writ petitioner for an amicable solution of the matter, and they are always ready to welcome their father back to his place of residence. It is admitted in the affidavit that the house in question belongs to the petitioner, and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 stay with their family in the residence of the petitioner in the capacity of son and daughter-in-

Page No.# 5/20

law.

7. So far relating to the claim of maintenance, it is the stand on affidavit of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain himself, since he draws a pension of Rs. 80,000/- per month for himself and he has also been made a nominee his late wife's pension amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. According to them, besides pensionary benefits, the petitioner also receives a huge income in the form of rent from tenants and therefore, according to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance.

8. Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner based on the aforesaid facts/materials/pleadings contends that there is no dispute as on date, that the residence/house belongs to the petitioner and his son and daughter-in-law, are staying in the said residence, whereas, the petitioner is staying in a rented premises. It is argued by Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel that he has instruction to submit from his client that the petitioner losses all his mental peace, while staying with his son and daughter-in-law who misbehave with him and therefore, he should be allowed to live alone peacefully in his last days of life in his own residence without any disturbance and harassment from his son and daughter-in-law.

9. It is his contention that even the rent from the house/shops is being collected by the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. According to Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel, when there is an admitted position, as admitted by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the affidavit that the Page No.# 6/20

house belongs to the petitioner, the petitioner has a right to get his son and daughter-in-law, evicted not only in terms of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, framed thereunder, but according to him, this Court can also exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue such a direction, more particularly in the given facts of the admitted position.

10. Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Vanitha -Vs- Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others reported in (2011) 15 SCC 730, contends that the Tribunal constituted under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has the discretion to pass the appropriate order(s) for protecting the life and property of parents and senior citizens which include orders of eviction. It is his further contention that such power has to be read within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by necessary implication.

11. According to him, it is not always necessary that on failure of maintenance of the parents in terms of the financial management, the sons and daughters can be evicted; rather in the event of not giving proper residence, such power can be exercised since the maintenance under the Act, 2007 includes a residence. The learned senior counsel concludes his argument by contending that it could not be said that the power to evict shall always be relatable to maintenance in terms of money or that the power to evict is relatable only to the properties absolutely transferred.

Page No.# 7/20

12. Per contra, Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contends that an order passed by the Tribunal is an appealable order under Section 16 of the Act, 2007 and in terms of Rule 50 of the Assam Rules, and therefore, this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, may not interfere with the order impugned more particularly, for having an alternative efficacious remedy.

13. Coming to the power of eviction, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5, referring to Section 23 of the Act, 2007, submits that the order of eviction as envisaged under Section 23 is essentially relatable to refusal of maintenance and in the case in hand, there is no dispute that their father can very well maintain himself as he earns from his pension as well as getting rents inasmuch as the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of their father has candidly submitted that the petitioner is not interested in receiving any monetary maintenance from the respondent Nos.5 & 6 and therefore, according to Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the given facts, Section 23 of the Act, 2007 cannot be made applicable in the present case, when admittedly no maintenance is required.

14. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 further contends that Section 23 of the Act, 2007 cannot be made applicable in the given facts of the present case in absence of any allegation of conditional transfer of the property to the respondent No.s4 and 5 or transfer of property to any third party by their father Page No.# 8/20

inasmuch as it is an admitted position that the house/property in question still stands in the name of the father. Therefore, in absence of transfer of the property refused to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or any third party, the prayer of eviction under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 is righly refused.

15. Referring to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samtola Devi -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Othersreported in 2025 SCC Online SC 669, Mr. Deka, learned counsel contends that under the Act, 2007, there is no provisions for drawing proceeding for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior citizen in absence of transfer.

16. By an alternative argument, Mr. Deka, learned counsel, contends that the order impugned in the proceeding is not based on sufficient reason and therefore, if this Court pleases to issue a writ of certiorari, the matter may be relegated to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. It is his further contention that the petitioner has filed the application before the Maintenance Officer and not before the Tribunal and therefore, the order cannot also be treated as an order of Tribunal nor such Maintenance Officer was having any authority even under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, to issue any direction of eviction.

17. This court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the materials available on record.

Page No.# 9/20

18. The issue essentially arises before this Court, is firstly, as to whether the eviction in terms of Section 23 can be directed, only when there is Transfer of Property with a condition that such transfer is for providing basic amenities and basic physical need to the transferor and there is a failure thereof on the part of the transferee, or whether such power of eviction can also be exercised in absence of any transfer of property but property being possessed by person(s) who has a responsibility to maintain such senior citizen and there is a failure on his/her part.

19. The second question that may arise in this proceeding is as to whether irrespective of provisions of Section 23 and the power of maintenance tribunal in terms of the Act, 2007, a Writ of Mandamus can be issued for eviction of son/daughters/relatives of the senior citizen, when such senior citizens wishes to be left alone in his property without interference of such relatives, when ownership of such property of the senior citizen is admitted by the wards.

20. To answer the aforesaid issue, in the opinion of this Court, it will be necessary to first consider the purpose of the enactment and the provisions of the Act, 2007.

21. While tabling the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Bill, 2007 in Loksabha, the Hon'ble Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment made statements, amongst others, that the bill proposes to make it obligatory on the person who inherits the property of their aged relatives to maintain them. It was also Page No.# 10/20

stated that the bill seeks for institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for the protection of the life and property of old persons.

22. Describing aging as a major challenge and the need to give more attention to the care and protection of older person, the statement and object and reasons of the Act'20027 declares that, many older persons are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and face emotional neglect and lack of physical and financial support and therefore, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provision to claim maintenance.

23. From the scheme of the Act, 2007, more particularly from section 4, what is seen is that it places an obligation of maintenance of a senior citizen on his or her children, grandchildren or any legal heirs. Under the scheme of the act, the children of a senior citizen have the obligation to maintain a senior citizen to the extent that "he may lead a normal life". In case of a childless senior citizen, the obligation is on a relative who is in the process of inheritingthe senior citizen's property.

24. Thus, the Act, 2007 creates a legal right upon a senior citizen to ensure his/her well-being and dignity at the hands of their children, grandchildren and relatives. The Act 2007 further creates a legal framework that makes it mandatory for children and other relatives specified under section 4 to maintain their parents and senior citizens, who are unable to maintain themselves. The Act, 2007, under section 5 provides for a mechanism for senior citizens to seek Page No.# 11/20

legal recourse against abuse, neglect and abandonment by their relatives specified under section 4 of the Act. The maintenance defined under section 2(b) is an inclusive definition that includes "residence".

25. Section 23 is the bone of contention in the present proceeding, which is enumerated under Chapter V of the Act, 2007, dealing with the protection of the life and property of senior citizens.

Section 23(1) provides that post commencement of the Act 2007, if any property is transferred by a senior citizen with a condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to such senior citizen and the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, such transfer is deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or under undue influence and the senior citizen shall have an option to get such transfer declared void at the hands of the tribunal constituted under the Act.2007.

Section 23(2) deals with the Right to Receive Maintenance of a senior citizen out of an estate which was transferred, from the transferee, if such transferee has notice of such right or the transfer is gratuitous.

26. From the aforesaid provisions of law, this court is having no doubt in its mind that section 23 empowers a Maintenance Tribunal to declare certain transfers to be void, when such transfer by a senior citizen, post commencement of the Act 2007 is conditional as to the maintenance and well being of the transferor senior citizen. Thus, Page No.# 12/20

the parliament in its wisdom has gone to such an extent to include breach of condition/promise of transfer by a senior citizen under the fold of fraud, coercion etc. Incorporation of such a provision itself clarifies the wisdom of the parliament to protect the right of senior citizens inasmuch as, in terms of section 3 of the Act'2007, the provisions of the Act 2007 have an overriding effect over any law in force, which is inconsistent with Act'2007 or any instrument.

27. The constitution bench in S. Vanitha (supra), while dealing with the provisions of Section 23, in no unambiguous term held that sub- section (1) of Section 23 creates a deeming fiction of law, where the transfer of the property is subject to a condition of providing for maintenance and that the basic needs of a senior citizen is not fulfilled by the person, upon whom such obligation is imposed, then at the option of the transferor, a transfer can be declared as void by a Tribunal.

It was further clarified by the constitution bench that sub-section 2 of section 23 is broad enough also to cover a situation where the transfer is by the senior citizen, in which event the transferee with notice of right, or a gratuitous transferee, can be made subject to the enforcement of right against the transferred estate.

It was further held that sub-section 2 stipulates that the right to receive maintenance can be enforced against a gratuitous transferee or a transferee with notice of pre pre-existing right of a citizen to receive maintenance out of an estate, notwithstanding who is the transferee of the estate.

Page No.# 13/20

28. After declaring the aforesaid proposition of law and keeping with the salutary public purposes underlying the enactment of the legislature, the Constitution Bench held that the expression "transfer" would include not only absolute transfer of property but also transfer of a right or interest in the property. It was also clarified that such determination is also in consonance with the provisions of section 2(f), which defines the expression "property" to include rights or interests in such a property. It was also held by the Constitution Bench that the expression "transfer", not having been defined specifically by the legislation, must receive an interpretation, which would advance the benefit, object and purpose of the provisions of the Act.'2007

29. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the enforcement of the "Right to Receive Maintenance" is more comprehensive in its nature than merely enforcing an order of maintenance passed under section 9 of the Act. It was clarified that eviction would be an incident of enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection, and therefore, the Tribunals constituted under the Act, 2007 may have the right to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parents.

30. Thus, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Vanitha can be culled out in the following manner:

I. Sub-section 1 of Section 23 creates a deeming fiction of law giving an option to a senior citizen transferor to get declared a Page No.# 14/20

transfer of property void, when such transfer was subject to a condition of providing maintenance and basic need of the transferor, which is not fulfilled by the person upon whom such obligation/condition is imposed.

II. Sub-section 2 of section 23 is broad enough to cover a situation involving a transferred estate against a third party or a gratuitous transferee subject to notice.

III. The expression "transfer" under the Act, 2007 would include not only the absolute transfer of property but also the transfer of a right or interest in the property.

IV. Expression "transfer" not having been defined specifically by the legislature, it must receive an interpretation, which would advance the benefit, object and purpose of the provision of the Act.

V. The expression "property" under section 2(f) to include rights or interests in such property.

VI. "Right to Receive Maintenance" is more comprehensive in

its nature than merely enforcing an order of maintenance passed under section 9 of the Act, 2007, and includes right of residence.

VII. "Eviction" would be an incidence of enforcement of Right to

Maintenance, and the Tribunal under the Act, 2007 have the power to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure maintenance and protection of the senior citizen.

31. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court when an Page No.# 15/20

otherwise valid transfer can be declared void, in a situation as recorded hereinabove, there should not be any doubt that in a case, where a senior citizen is deprived of his right of enjoyment and possession of his property, at the hands of his sons and his relatives, even without transfer, the tribunal shall have power to issue direction of eviction, if it is necessary and expedient for maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or parents. Allowing the Children/ grandchildren/relatives to stay in such property of the senior citizen is also required to be interpreted as a transfer inasmuch as such an action, shall necessarily mean permission to stay/occupy the property which in turn shall be a transfer of his rights or interest of exclusive enjoyment of possession in such a property, when the senior citizen is having a right for the protection of the life and property. Therefore, absolute transfer is not always necessary for the exercise of the power of the Tribunal to evict children /grandchildren/relatives, otherwise the very purpose of the Act, 2007 and power of eviction of Tribunals as held in S Vanitha shall be defeated.

32. Now coming to the case in hand, there is no dispute; rather it is admitted in the affidavit in opposition filed by the son and daughter-in-law that the residence from which the senior citizen is seeking their eviction belongs to the senior citizen. It is also an admitted position that the son and daughter-in-law are at present staying in the said residence of the senior citizen, and the senior Page No.# 16/20

citizen initially started staying in a hotel and subsequently, continued to stay till date in a rented premises and not in his residence. And it is his prayer that he be left alone in his residence and without any physical and mental harassment from his son and daughter-in-law.

33. As held by the hon'ble Apex Court in S. Vanitha (supra), that expression transfer would include not only transfer of property but also transfer of a right or interest in the property and that the transfer would mean transfer of such right or interest and shall not confine to the absolute transfer, and therefore, in the opinion of this court, the Right to Receive Maintenance must relate to a right to stay in his "own residence" as per the wish of the senior citizen inasmuch as the definition of maintenance includes a residence.

34. Therefore, as recorded hereinabove, there is an obligation, more particularly, of the son to maintain his father, who is a senior citizen. Such maintenance includes a "residence". Admittedly, the senior citizen is presently not staying in his residence, and it is his wish that he should be allowed to stay in his residence without interference from his son and daughter-in-law, and therefore, he wants an eviction of his son and daughter-in-law. That being the position, in the considered opinion of this court, a Maintenance Tribunal shall have the right to issue an order of eviction in terms of Section 23, by following due procedure prescribed under the Act' 2007, more Page No.# 17/20

particularly, under Section 5, even if there is no absolute transfer but such property of the senior citizen is being possessed by his children without his consent and he is living in a separate accommodation by paying rent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present one is a civil dispute between the senior citizen and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, to not to entertain the claim of the petitioner to get his residence back from his son and daughter-in-law and live alone.

35. Accordingly, the impugned order bearing No.DSWO(K)M/193/2024/198 dated 20.07.2024/19.07.2024 stands set aside and quashed.

36. Now coming to the second issue as regards the power of this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for eviction as urged by Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel, this court is of the unhesitant opinion that a writ court shall not be powerless to issue such a direction in an appropriate case inasmuch as the power of the writ court to issue a prerogative writ cannot be taken away by any statute.

37. In the case in hand, the dispute relates to the failure on the part of the authorities under the Act' 2007 to entertain the prayer of eviction, and therefore, this court is to look into the extent of such power and the remedy available to the petitioner.

38. The important provisions of the Act, 2007, in the present context, are sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16. This court has already elaborately Page No.# 18/20

dealt with section 4 in the earlier part of this judgment.

39. In terms of section 7 of the Act, 2007, the State Government is to constitute for each subdivision one or more tribunals to adjudicate and decide upon the order of maintenance under section 5. It is not in dispute that the State of Assam in exercise of power under section 7 of the Act' 2007, had already constituted Maintenance Tribunals and a rule in this regard has also been framed.

40. Subsection 1 of Section 5 prescribes that a senior citizen can seek maintenance under Section 4 before the Maintenance Tribunal.

As per the mandate of Sub Section 3 of Section 5, the Tribunal is to issue a notice, on receipt of such an application to the Children or relative, as the case may be, and after giving parties an opportunity of being heard, is to hold an enquiry for determining the maintenance.

Subsection 4 of section 5 puts an obligation upon the Tribunal that such application be decided within a period of 90 days from the date of its receipt, with a power to extend the said period up to thirty days, in exceptional circumstances, after recording the reasons for such extensions in writing.

41. Section 16 of the Act creates a right of appeal by the aggrieved party against an order of the Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal.

42. From the scheme of the Act, 2007 and the Assam Rules, this Court is of the opinion that the Act, 2007 is a code, so far as the Page No.# 19/20

same relates to the claim of maintenance by a senior citizen. The Act, 2007 and the rules framed thereunder provide a comprehensive and specific framework for a senior citizen seeking maintenance. The Act'2007 and the rules framed thereunder also establish an Appellate tribunal for the aggrieved parties to seek redressal. That being the position, this court is of the opinion that, generally, this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, should not readily entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by-passing the remedies available under the Act' 2007.

43. However, as a note of caution, it is recorded that when there are violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction of the tribunals and/or Maintenance Officers, when it is a case involving malafides, arbitrariness or when there is clear error or violations of statutory provisions at the hands of the tribunals and authorities under the Act, 2007, this Court shall not be powerless to interfere in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for this reason this court has entertained the challenge made in the present proceeding which involves a refusal to entertain an application for eviction though by that time law was well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S Vanitha (supra). However, so far relating to the prayer of the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus directing the eviction of the respondent Nos.4 & 5, this court for the reasons recorded hereinabove is not inclined, inasmuch as the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the tribunal and the enquiry prescribed under sub-section 3 of Page No.# 20/20

section 5, cannot be carried out by this court.

44. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed to the following extent:

I. The impugned order dated 20.07.2024stands set aside and quashed, being passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the maintenance officer acted like the tribunal without having such power and jurisdiction.

II. The petitioner is permitted to approach the jurisdictional Maintenance Tribunal by filing an application under section 5 of the Act, 2007.

III. The tribunal shall thereafter proceed with the application of the petitioner in terms of the Act, 2007 and within the period prescribed under sub-section 4 of section 5, by giving due regards to the determinations made hereinabove.