Mary Antony vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1085 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.767 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

               MARY ANTONY, AGED 65 YEARS
               W/O ANTONY, MUDAVATHIL HOUSE, PALLISSERY ROAD,
               PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR
               TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 025.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
               SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI
               SRI.P.J.JOSE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1.

      2        THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
               (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 030.

      3        SHINY, AGED 30 YEARS
               W/O VINEESH, MUDAVATHIL HOUSE, PALLISSERY ROAD,
               PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

      4        AUGUSTINE VINEESH, AGED 39 YEARS
               MUDAVATHIL HOUSE, PALLISSERY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,
               KOCHI-682 025.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).767/2021
                                      2




                                JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, Ext.P5 application

filed by her invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of

parents and Senior Citizen Act and Rules requires urgent orders as she

expects delay in the completion of the process.

2. It seems that the application was filed only on 08.12.2020

and the period prescribed under the Statute for completion of the

proceedings is not yet over. However, in the light of the anxiety

expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as disclosed from

the Writ Petition and as also the urgency evident from Ext.P5

application, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself at the

admission stage without issuing notice to the party respondents by

directing that the statutory authority shall ensure that the service is

completed on the contesting respondents, as expeditiously as possible,

and to pass appropriate orders at the earliest, without waiting till the

completion of the statutory period.

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

                                                   SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna                                                  JUDGE
 W.P(C).767/2021

 W.P(C).767/2021





                         APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE         DOCUMENT    NO
                     1519/1983 OF SRO, EDAPPALLY

EXHIBIT P2           TRUE PHOTOCOPY   COPY   OF   THE    BASIC     TAX
                     RECEIPT

EXHIBIT P3           TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPERTY           TAX

RECEIPT ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF KOCHI

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.6.2019 IN OS NO 1501/2015 OF MUNSIFFS COURT, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE KERALA MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT