Partly allowed

Michael Dcruz v. the Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Kerala HC22 Feb 2019WP(C)/3098/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order of a Maintenance Tribunal that declined jurisdiction without recording reasons. A senior citizen petitioner challenged the unexplained refusal. The court set aside the order and directed the Tribunal to pass a fresh order after considering materials and recording reasons within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order set aside; Maintenance Tribunal directed to issue a fresh order recording reasons within two weeks.

Michael Dcruz Vs the Maintenance Tribunal for… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3098 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MICHAEL DCRUZ AGED 74 YEARS S/O.JERVAS D'CRUZ, RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE, CHERUSSERIBHAGOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.RASHMI K.R. SMT.S.SEETHA SRI.S.ABHILASH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL FOR THE WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE), CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013. 2 JANE JOSEPH AGED 47 YEARS W/O.JOSEPH SURROA, RESIDING AT ANJU BHAVANAM, CHERUSSERIBHAGOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518.

¶11

3 JOSEPH SURROA, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT ANJU BHAVANAM, CHERUSERIBHAGOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3098 of 2019

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

A senior citizen, who invoked the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), has impugned Ext.P3 order of the said Tribunal on the ground that it has declined to exercise jurisdiction but without stating any reasons.

¶20

I have examined Ext.P3 and I certainly find favour with the petitioner that the said order does not state why the Tribunal has refused to exercise jurisdiction, apart from saying that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On a reading of Ext.P3, one cannot understand why and on what basis the Tribunal has entered into the conclusions shown therein. I am certain, therefore, that this order cannot obtain favour of this Court and that the Maintenance Tribunal must issue a proper order in terms of law, after considering all the relevant and germane inputs.

¶21

When I made my mind clear at the Bar as afore, Sri.Mohan Lal, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2

¶22

WP(C).No. 3098 of 2019

¶23

¶24

and 3 requested time to file a counter affidavit and said that he will be able to convince this Court that the Maintenance Tribunal does not obtain jurisdiction in these matters. He said that the Maintenance Tribunal has acted upon a report obtained from the Tahsildar, Karunagappally, which is referred to as item No.2 in Ext.P3 and that this report will clearly establish the lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal.

¶25

Even when I hear Sri.Mohan Lal as afore, the fact remains that nothing is stated in Ext.P3, except that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is lacking. Even if, as stated by Sri.Mohan Lal, there are materials on record which will guide the Tribunal to this conclusion, it was incumbent upon the said Authority to have recorded the reasons in holding that it has no jurisdiction in this matter, rather than pithily saying that it cannot exercise jurisdiction, but without stating the reasons for saying so. I am fortified in my view because, it is now the declared law through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & others [(1978) 1 SCC 405], that an order cannot be bettered by pleadings on record.

¶26

WP(C).No. 3098 of 2019

¶27

¶28

In such view of the matter and without entering into the merits of any of the other contentions of the parties, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the Maintenance Tribunal to issue a fresh order, adverting to all the relevant materials, statements of the parties, if any, and such other germane aspects and after recording its reasons for the conclusions that it arrives at, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a judgment. I direct the Maintenance Tribunal to, thereafter, issue a copy of such order to both sides as per law, so that they can take appropriate recourse to law, if they are so desirous.

¶29

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No. 3098 of 2019

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.656/2018 DT.15/03/2018 OF CHAVARA SRO. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.15/12/2018.

Michael Dcruz v. the Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michael Dcruz v. the Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadik V.J. Vs the District Collector

Rahana, Vs the Punjab National Bank

Radhamma P., Vs Authorized Officer

Leena N., Vs Sobhana Kumari

Bindhu Abraham, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Shajahan Pareli Kunjumoideen Vs the Regional Transport Officer