Leela.B vs District Collector And Presiding ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 410 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

  WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.213 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               LEELA.B
               AGED 66 YEARS
               W/O.SATHEESHAN, SHEEJA BHAVAN, RAMANUJA NAGAR-81,
               ERUTTUKULANGARA, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.R.MOHANA BABU
               SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND PRESIDING OFFICER
               APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE UNDER THE
               SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE AND PROTECTION ACT 2007,
               CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013.

      2        SHIBU,
               AGED 38 YEARS
               VAISHNAVAM, SHEEJA BHAVAN, RAMANUJA NAGAR-81,
               ERUTTUKULANGARA, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM-691004.

      3        ANIL KUMAR,
               AGED 36 YEARS
               SHEEJA BHAVAN, RAMANUJA NAGAR-81, ERUTTUKULANGARA,
               KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM-691004.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.213/2021                    .2.



                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of January 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior

Government Pleader for the first respondent.

2. Petitioner herein is a senior citizen and the mother of respondents 2 and

3. She approached the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Kollam for reliefs under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act 2007. Petitioner's application was dismissed by Ext.P1 order.

Ext.P2 appeal was preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1. Thereupon, the

first respondent issued Ext.P3 notice intimating the hearing of the appeal. The

grievance of the petitioner is that, Ext.P2 appeal has not been disposed of till

now.

3. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought by the petitioner, I feel that

notice to respondents 2 and 3 can be dispensed with.

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to

take up Ext.P2 appeal and dispose it of , 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 from the date of service of appeal notice on the respondents 2 and

3 herein, whichever is later.

Sd/-

                                                     SUNIL THOMAS

dpk                                                       JUDGE
 dpk
                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY PRESIDING

OFFICER MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KOLLAM DATED 18.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT INTIMATING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL DATED 03.08.2020.