H.S. Ameerudheen vs The District Magistrate ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2017 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.21890 OF 2020(I)


PETITIONER:

               H.S. AMEERUDHEEN
               AGED 77 YEARS
               S/O. ABDUL KADHAR,
               SINAN MANZIL,
               THERU, NILESHWAR,
               KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
               PIN - 671314.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
               SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DISTRICT COLLECTOR)
               KASARAGOD, VIDYANAGAR P O,
               PIN - 67112.

      2        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               NILESHWAR POLICE STATION,
               NILESHWAR, PIN - 671314.

      3        THAHANI MAHAMOOD
               D/O. MAHAMMOD KUNNIL,
               'AL-MUNAZIB',
               MUTTOM, BANDIYOD,
               MANGALPADY, UPPALA,
               KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
               PIN - 671322.

      4        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               KASARAGOD AT KANGANGAD,
               KANHANGAD,
               KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
               PIN - 671315


               SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.21890 OF 2020

                                       2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of January 2021

The petitioner herein is a senior citizen, who

filed Ext.P2 application invoking the provisions

under the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. By Ext.P3

communication, the first respondent relegated it to

the fourth respondent for necessary action.

Challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner has preferred this

writ petition.

The precise contention of the petitioner is that,

the authority under the act is the first respondent

and the 4th respondent is not competent to adjudicate

on the complaint. Per contra, the learned Senior

Government Pleader invited my attention to rule 19(2)

of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 which enables the first

respondent to relegate the matter under the Act for

consideration of the complaint.

Having considered this, I find that, there is no WP(C).No.21890 OF 2020

illegality in Ext.P3. Accordingly, the writ petition

is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider

Ext.P2 application, as expeditiously as possible, and

to pass appropriate orders, even without waiting for

the expiry of the statutory period.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

Jms //True Copy// P.A to Judge WP(C).No.21890 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2020.

//True Copy// P.A to Judge