Abdul Hameed vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9045 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.7015 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER/S:

      1     ABDUL HAMEED
            AGED 68 YEARS
            THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE,
            KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O.,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.

      2     AMINA BEEVI
            AGED 62 YEARS
            W/O. ABDUL HAMEED, THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE,
            KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI,
            KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
            SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
            TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

      2     THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
            (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, BESIDE
            ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001.

      3     RIYAS, AGED 44 YEARS
            S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, KOCHUTHEKKETHIL HOUSE,
            KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE,
            KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502.

      4     HASEENA BEEVI, AGED 41 YEARS
            W/O. RIYAS, KOCHUTHEKKETHIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLY
            BHAGAM AND MURI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM
            P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502.

              SRI. K.P.HARISH (SR.GP)
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7015 OF 2021(B)            2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners who are senior citizens aged 68

and 62 years respectively are aggrieved by the conduct

of the third respondent and his wife, who is the fourth

respondent. Dispute relates to the residential building.

The petitioners invoking Section 19 of the Maintenance

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,

laid Ext.P4 application before the second respondent.

The grievance of the petitioner is that Ex.P4 has not

been taken up and orders passed, in spite of

considerable delay.

2. Having considered the limited prayer sought

by the petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ

Petition at the threshold itself, by directing the second

respondent to take up Ext.P4, if the application is found

to be in order and thereafter to dispose of Ext.P4 as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, or from the date of completion of service on

the respondents, whichever is later.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.711/2005 OF SRO, KAREELAKULANGARA DATED 25.5.2015.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KEERIKKADU VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE RATIONING AUTHORITY BEARING NO.1420020781.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.2.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT SUBSCRIBING NO.217442/21/FC DATED 22.2.2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

   RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS           NIL