M.V.Mytheen vs Naseer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5235 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.3654 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONERS:

      1        M.V.MYTHEEN
               AGED 75 YEARS
               MANNANKUZHI HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE,
               PATTIMATTOM P.O., PIN-683 562.

      2        KHADEEJA,
               AGED 73 YEARS
               W/O.M.V.MYTHEEN, MANNANKUZHI HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM
               VILLAGE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., PIN-683 562.

               BY ADV. SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        NASEER
               S/O.MYTHEEN.M.V., MANNANKUZHI HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM
               VILLAGE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., PIN-683 562.

      2        VIJI.K.A.,
               W/O.NASEER, MANNANKUZHI HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE,
               PATTIMATTOM P.O., PIN-683 562.

      3        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               (TRIBUNAL FOR SENIOR CITIZEN), MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3654 OF 2021(F)
                                2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

The petitioners are husband and wife who are Senior

Citizens aged 75 and 73 years respectively. They

submitted Ext.P1 application before the third respondent

invoking the Provisions under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules. The

grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the

fact that the application was filed on 04.09.2020, no

orders have been passed on it. The limited prayer

sought by the petitioners is for a direction to the third

respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 application as

expeditiously as possible.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. Having considered the limited prayer sought by

the petitioners herein, I feel that notice need not be

issued to first and second respondents, since a direction WP(C).No.3654 OF 2021(F)

for an early disposal of the application can only enure to

the benefit of both sides.

4. Accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of the

Writ Petition at the threshold itself, directing the third

respondent to take up, and dispose of Ext.P1 application

after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides to

submit their case, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within a period of one month from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment or the date of

completion of service on the respondents whichever is

later. It is made clear that, if the first and second

respondents have not appeared before the third

respondent till now, the authority shall ensure that the

service is completed at the earliest.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/12-2 WP(C).No.3654 OF 2021(F)

APPENDIX PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2020.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE