Madras High Court
B.Ramasamy vs The District Collector on 4 June, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4867 of 2021
B.Ramasamy ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The District Collector
Namakkal District
2.The Chairman / Sub Collector
Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act
Namakkal District
3.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District
4.The Inspector of Police
Namakkal Police Station
Namakkal District ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 18.07.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No11210 of 2012, on the file of
this Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.M.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran
Government Counsel for R1, R3 & R4
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.M.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1, 3 and 4.
2. This Writ Appeal by the Writ Petitioner is directed against the
order, dated 18.07.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.11210 of 2012.
3. The said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant to direct the
Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, to implement the order passed by
the second respondent, namely, the Chairman/Sub-Collector under the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated 11.07.2012, by evicting the
appellant's elder son-Jeyakrishnan from the house at Survey No.53/5, Door
No.4/606A, Andavar Nagar, Reddiyarpatti Village, Namakkal Taluk and
District and hand over the possession of the said house.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
4. Before the learned Writ Court, the appellant placed reliance on
Section 23 of the Act. The learned Writ Court held that the said Section is not
applicable to the facts of the present case and also faulted the observations
made by the Tribunal, namely, the second respondent herein, stating that it
had acted like a Civil Court and it had no power to do so. Ultimately, the Writ
Petition was dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the legal issue as to whether the order and direction issued by the competent
authority under the Act can be directed to be implemented or not was
considered by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Sunny Paul and
another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi in W.P.(C)No.10463 of 2015, dated
15.03.2017, wherein it was held that under Section 23 of the Act, the
Maintenance Tribunal can issue an eviction order to ensure that senior
citizens live peacefully in their house without being forced to accommodate a
son, who physically assaults and mentally harasses them or threatens to
dispossess them. Further, the Court has observed even in the absence of
comprehensive action plan for protecting the life and property of senior
citizens under Section 22 of the Act, the Maintenance Tribunal had
jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
there are several other decisions which have held that considering the purpose
for which the legislature thought fit to enact the law, directions issued by the
Tribunal cannot be reduced to a paper order and consequential directions
were issued to implement the directions.
7. Returning back to the facts of the present case, the appellant
filed the Writ Petition to implement the direction issued by the Maintenance
Tribunal, dated 11.07.2012, which issued direction to the appellant's elder
son-Jeyakrishnan, in respect of a house property.
8. It is seen that the said elder son-Jeyakrishnan did not
challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. However, in the Writ Petition filed
by the appellant, the learned Writ Court had virtually set aside the direction
issued by the Maintenance Tribunal thereby placing the appellant in a worser
position in his own litigation, which is not permissible. It has to be noted that
the lis which was before the Writ Court was whether a direction can be issued
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to implement the order of the
Maintenance Tribunal. The Writ Court was not called upon to examine as to
the correctness of the direction, that too, the observations / findings rendered
by the learned Writ Court could not have been rendered in a Writ Petition filed
by the appellant, who was the beneficiary of the direction issued by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
Tribunal. Therefore, the observations and directions issued by the learned
Writ Court are beyond the jurisdiction. If the appellant's son-Jeyakrishnan
had challenged the order of the Maintenance Tribunal and held that such a
direction was without jurisdiction, then the Writ Court would have been
justified in examining whether the Maintenance Tribunal can issue such
directions. In the absence of any challenge by Jeyakrishnan to the order of the
Tribunal, the learned Writ Court either could have held that under Article 226
of the Constitution of India directions cannot be issued, but could have never
quashed or diluted the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.
9. For the above reasons, we are necessarily required to interfere
with the findings of the learned Writ Court on this technical ground.
10. The next aspect would be as to what direction can be issued
in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
11. Fortunately, for us we are not required to go into the said
aspect, as the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the
appellant became bed-ridden, wisdom has dawned upon his elder son-
Jeyakrishnan and he is taking care of the appellant.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
12. For the above reasons, the Writ Appeal stands allowed and the
findings rendered by the learned Writ Court are vacated. However, on account
of the change in circumstances in the appellant's family and the change of
attitude of the appellant's elder son-Jeyakrishnan, no direction is required to
be issued as sought for by the appellant. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
04.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may
be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
To:
1.The District Collector.
Namakkal District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1101 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4867 of 2021
04.06.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
