Dismissed

P.Peter, S/O. Pitchai Pillai, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC16 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4455/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandamus against the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held the petition to be premature and against the statutory authority's rights.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as premature with no costs.

P.Peter, S/O. Pitchai Pillai, Vs the Revenue… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 16.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4455 of 2017

¶7

P.Peter ..Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli Region, Tiruchirappalli. ..Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to dispose of the Petitioner's application dated 8.2.2017 which is filed under Sections 5,23,24,25,28 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 within the time Stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner :M/s.B.Jameel Arasu

¶12

For Respondent :Mr.D.Muruganandam Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to dispose of the Petitioner's application dated 8.2.2017 which is filed under Sections 5,23,24,25,28 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 within the time Stipulated by this Court.

¶15

2.MrD.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶16

3.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶17

4.According to him, his son and daughter-in-law are not taking care of him in his old age and they have acting against his interest all along and he has no means to support himself and therefore, he filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act. The said application has been made on 8.2.2017. Before any order being passed on the application, the Petitioner has

¶18

¶19

unnecessarily rushed to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for the relief stated supra.

¶20

5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner try to impress upon this Court that no order will be passed on the application unless this Court interfere with the same. I do not find that such contention raised by the Petitioner is acceptable for the reason that this Court cannot interfere with the rights of the statutory authority who is vested with the power, as per the provisions of the Act. There cannot be any apprehension for the Petitioner before any order being passed. As no other material has been produced by the Petitioner in support of his contention, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition as the same is being a pre-matured one and the accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed as pre-matured. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli Region, Tiruchirappalli.

¶26

+1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR NO.15518

¶27

vsn

¶28

MAS/MR/SAR4:04.04.2017:2P-3C

¶29

W.P(MD)No.4445 of 2017

¶30

16.03.2017

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Peter, S/O. Pitchai Pillai, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Peter, S/O. Pitchai Pillai, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

S.M.Sivagami Achi Vs the District Collector

G.Sevugapandi, Vs the Commissioner

S.V.N. Sethuraman Vs the Inspector of Panchayat Cum

T. Thilagavathi Vs the Competent Authority

N.Sudharasan, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sokkayi Ammal Vs the Superintendent of Police