Disposed

Smt Kiran Jain v. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC13 Jan 2021WPC/3581/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to evict the petitioners' son and daughter-in-law from a house owned and occupied by the senior citizen petitioners due to torture and interference. The court observed the statutory duty of the Deputy Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules, 2014 to protect senior citizens' life and property.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to take an appropriate decision on the petitioners' application/complaint within one month.

Smt Kiran Jain Vs State of Jharkhand through… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 3581 of 2020

¶4

Smt. Kiran Jain

¶5

Sri Pawan Kumar Jain

¶6

... … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, District- Palamau at Medininagar (Daltonganj),

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Medininagar (Daltonganj), District- Palamau

¶10

Senior Superintendent of Police, Palamau at Medininagar

¶11

Police Station Incharge, Daltonganj Police Station, District- Palamau at Medininagar

¶12

Rohit Kumar Jain

¶13

Smt. Sakshi Jain

¶14

… …Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Sumant Day, Advocate Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, G.A.-V

¶17

Order No. 04 Dated: 13.01.2021

¶18

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶19

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Deputy Commissioner Medninagar, Palamau ( the respondent no.1) and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Medininagar (Daltonganj) (the respondent no.2) to pass an appropriate order for evicting the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from their house situated at Shiva Jee Maidan Road, Daltonganj, District- Palamau (hereinafter to be referred as “the said house”) in conformity with the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short “the Act, 2007”) read with relevant provisions of Jharkhand State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (in short “the Rules, 2014”). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant protection to the petitioners and restrain the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from interfering in their life with peaceful use, occupation and possession of the house without any obstruction.

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the senior citizens. They are the owners of the

¶21

¶22

aforesaid house and have been residing therein since 1984. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are their son and daughter-in-law respectively who have been permitted by the petitioners to reside in the said house. It is further submitted that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 are torturing the petitioners mentally as well as physically. The respondent no. 5 is not engaged in any job and constantly demands money from the petitioners. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 also tried to grab the property of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners filed a complaint before the respondent no. 4- the Officer in-charge, Daltonganj Police Station, Daltonganj on 16.07.2020, however no action was taken. The petitioners also initiated the process of disowning the respondent no. 5 and 6 from their properties and in this regard, a Deed of Disownment was executed on 13.07.2020 and published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ (Jharkhand Edition) on 16.07.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 filed a detailed complaint before the respondent no. 4 under the provisions of the Act, 2007 on 30.09.2020. Though the petitioners had earlier approached the Superintendent of Police, Palamau at Daltonganj on 25.07.2020 by filing a representation stating that no action was taken on the complaint filed in the office of the respondent no. 4, yet nothing was done by the said authority. Even petitioners’ representation was not accepted by the said authority, rather they were directed to approach the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a complaint on the same day i.e. 25.07.2020 before the respondent no. 1 under the Act, 2007 however, the same is still pending. The petitioners thereafter filed application on 08.08.2020 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the Act, 2005”) before the respondent no. 2 seeking information regarding the status of the complaint dated 25.07.2020 which was referred to the said authority by the respondent no. 1 but the desired information has still not been furnished which is violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005 as well as the fundamental rights of the senior citizens. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have completely overlooked the mandate of Section 5(4) read with its proviso of the Act, 2007 and have failed to pass an order within 90 days from the date of service of notice of the application to

¶23

¶24

concerned person. The inaction on the part of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in not proceeding with the application of the petitioners under the Act, 2007 read with relevant provisions of the Rules, 2014 is violative of the strict objective and purpose of the said statute enacted by the legislature. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been ill-treating the petitioners and as such they are not entitled to reside in the petitioners’ house particularly when the same has specifically been revoked by them. It is lastly submitted that the respondent no.1 has no power to delegate the matter for adjudication to an officer subordinate to him i.e. the respondent no. 2.

¶25

4. Heard Mr. Sumant Day, learned counsel for the petitioners as well Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V appearing on behalf of the State respondents, and perused the materials available on record. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent nos. 5 and 6, who happen to be their son and daughter-in-law respectively, are disturbing their peaceful life and are also torturing them in different ways and as such they want to evict the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from their house. They have also made several representations before the State authorities in this regard, however no action has been taken on the same.

¶26

5. Section 21 of the Act, 2007 deals with the measures to be taken by the State Government for protection of life and property of senior citizens. Section 22 (1) provides that the State Government may confer such powers and impose such duties upon District Magistrate as may be necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Act, 2007 are properly carried out and the District Magistrate may specify the officer subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties so conferred or imposed in the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer as may be prescribed.

¶27

6. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 32(1) of the Act, 2007, the Rules, 2014 has been framed and notified by the Social Welfare, Women and Children Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. Sub-rule (1) of rule 19 of the Rules, 2014 provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall exercise the powers and duties

¶28

¶29

conferred under sub-rule (2) and (3) of rule 19 to ensure that the provisions of the Act, 2007 are appropriately executed. As per sub-rule (2) of rule 19, the Deputy Commissioner has the duty to ensure the safety of life and property of Senior Citizens. Sub-rule 3 of rule 19 of the Rules, 2014 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to issue directions to any concerned Government or Constitutional Agency or Body functioning in the district, as per the general guidelines of the State Government, in view of executing the duty mentioned under sub-rule (2) of rule 19.

¶30

7. Though there is no specific procedure prescribed under the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014 for evicting any person who has allegedly occupied the immovable property of a senior citizen illegally and has thereby put a senior citizen to mental torture, yet from the conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of both the Act and the Rules, it may be construed that the respondent no. 1 is under statutory obligation to take appropriate measures to protect the life and property of the senior citizens. The respondent no. 1 may however specify any of his subordinate officers to perform the duties conferred under the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014. In the present case, it appears that the application/complaint of the petitioners has been referred by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no. 2 and as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said application is still pending.

¶31

8. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, without entering into the merit of the case of the petitioners, I find it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 2 to take an appropriate decision on the petitioners’ application/complaint and thereafter to take suitable action in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondent no. 1 who has the statutory duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act, 2007 is properly carried out, is also directed to keep supervision over the matter for its timely disposal.

¶32

9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶33

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶34

Ritesh/A.F.R.

Smt Kiran Jain v. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kiran Jain v. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amulya Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand

Sotam Kumar Ghosh Vs Sapan Kumar Ghosh

Ashwani Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Darshana Stone Works through Its Partner Satish Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines

Janak Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand