Dismissed

Jayalakshmi P. v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Oct 2020WP(C)/13873/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the 1999 Act does not apply to the petitioners' subject. It directed the petitioners to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate, notified under the 2016 Act, for appointment as guardian of the second petitioner for person and property.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are at liberty to move the Sub Divisional Magistrate designated under G.O.No.2168 dated 24/09/2020 to consider applications under Section 14 of the 2016 Act.

Jayalakshmi P. Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.13873 OF 2020(S)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JAYALAKSHMI P. AGED 55 YEARS W/O.SUNILKUMAR.K.C., KODUNGAZHITHODI HOUSE, HOUSE NO.39/13, VAZHAYOOR PANCHAYAT, KUTTOOLANGADI, AZHINJILAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM-673632.

¶8

2 NIRMALA.P. AGED 47 YEARS D/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, KODUNGAZHITHODI HOUSE, KUTTOOLANGADI, VAZHAYOOR, AZHINJILAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM-673632, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND SISTER JAYALAKSHMI P., PETITIONER NO.1.

¶9

3 SAUDAMINI.P. AGED 68 YEARS W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, NEELATTU CHENAPPURATHU HOUSE, CHELAMBRA.P.O., MALAPPURAM-673631.

¶10

4 MURALIDHARAN.P. AGED 58 YEARS S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, VADAKKEVEETIL PALLIYALIL HOUSE, THENJIPPALAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM-673636.

¶11

5 DINESHKUMAR.P. AGED 49 YEARS S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PULLIYAMBALATH PALLIYALIL HOUSE,PUTHUCODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM-673633.

¶12

6 PRASANNAKUMARI.P. AGED 51 YEARS D/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, ARUNSREE HOUSE, ANGADIPPURAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM-679321.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No.13873 OF 2020(S)

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI110001.

¶18

2 THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSONS WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, 16B, BADA BAZAR ROAD, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110060, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

¶19

3 LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSONS WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676505.

¶20

R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA BY SPL.GP.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR BY AMICUS CURIAE- SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR SMT.SATHYASREE PRIYA ESWARAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No.13873 OF 2020(S)

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.RamKumar Nambiar and Smt.Sathya Sree Priya Eswaran, the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri.Manoj Kumar.

¶26

The application of the petitioners under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking appointment of the 1^st petitioner as guardian of the 2^nd petitioner for her person and property, was rejected by the 3^rd respondent on the reason that the subject is not covered under the said Act.

¶27

The said Act applies only to persons suffering from Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities. Evidently, the application is not maintainable before the 3^rd respondent. The remedy of the petitioners is to move under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is brought to my notice that as

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No.13873 OF 2020(S)

¶30

per G.O.No.2168 dated 24/09/2020, the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area has been notified as the designated athourity to consider applications under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioners are at liberty to move the said authority. I am sure that if such an application is moved, the same will be considered and orders passed expeditiously.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

WP(C).No.13873 OF 2020(S)

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 15.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE VAZHAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 30.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE CHELEMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 15.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK.

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 18.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KONDOTTY TALUK.

¶44

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1319 OF 1985 IN THE KONDOTTTY SRO, DATED 5.4.1985.

¶45

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.10.2019 ISSUED FROM THE VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶46

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.10.2019 ISSUED FROM THE VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶47

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY DATED 24.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, GENERAL HOSPITAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM.

¶48

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD DATED 30.11.2018 OF PETITIONER NO.1.

¶49

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶50

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.3.

¶51

¶52

WP(C).No.13873 OF 2020(S)

¶53

EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE 26.5.2020 SUBMITTED	AFFIDAVIT DATED BY PETITIONER NO.4.
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE 26.5.2020 SUBMITTED	AFFIDAVIT DATED BY PETITIONER NO.5.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE 26.5.2020 SUBMITTED	AFFIDAVIT DATED BY PETITIONER NO.6.
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY RESPONDEN	LETTER DATED 11.6.2020 T NO.3.

Jayalakshmi P. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi P. v. Union of India

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

Vincent Y Vs the Karunagappally Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

B.K.Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Kunhi Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh V.N. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

P.N.Sreenivasan Vs the District Collector/District Magistrate

Sunilkumar.K Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer