Allowed

Sasidharan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2019WP(C)/3114/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal of a Maintenance Tribunal to permit legal representation. Relying on settled legal principles, the Single Judge directed the Tribunal to allow counsel for both parties and complete the proceedings within one month due to the advanced age of one respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to allow both sides to engage Advocates/counsel of their choice and complete proceedings within one month.

Sasidharan Vs the State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3114 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SASIDHARAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARA PILLA, SARADA VILASOM HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA DESOM, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE , KALLETTUMKARA P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 311.

¶12

3 SUKUMARAPILLA, AGED 95 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA PILLA, SARADA VILASAM HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA DESOM, KALLETTUMAKRA VILLAGE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 317.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 3114 of 2019

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The singular prayer made by the petitioner is that he be allowed to prosecute proceedings before the 2^nd respondent - 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), through a legal counsel. The petitioner says that the 2^nd respondent is refusing to allow him to do so and he therefore, prays that directions be issued to the said Authority to enable him to engage a counsel of his choice.

¶21

Interestingly, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent - senior citizen, who is stated to be more than 95 years in age, also makes a similar request, conceding that on two other occasions his client had managed to appear before the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

The law in this regard is now well settled by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24492 of 2012, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P3, wherein, it has been unequivocally declared that the parties are entitled to prosecute proceedings before Authorities under the Act, through legal counsel.

¶23

WP(C).No. 3114 of 2019

¶24

¶25

In the afore circumstances, I direct the 2^nd respondent to allow both sides to engage Advocates/counsel of their choice, but to complete proceedings based on the complaint of the 3^rd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking note of the advanced age of the senior citizen. I also make it clear that no adjournments, unless it is absolutely necessary, will be granted and that the 2^nd respondent will complete the proceedings within the time granted herein.

¶26

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No. 3114 of 2019

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD
	RESPONDENT C2/4464/2018 DATED 12/12/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO APPOINT A
	COUNSEL DATED 24/1/2019.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP 24492 OF 2012 DATED 9/1/2013 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KEERALA

Sasidharan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paulose Vs the Joint Registrar for Co-Operative Society(General)

Lalitha P. K. Vs the Joint Director(Audit) of Co-Operative Societies

Shalu M.P. Vs the Pantheerankavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 2110

K.Baburajan, Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Service Examination Board

Baiju.P., Vs Authorized Officer

Shibu.C, Vs Authorised Officer