Allowed

M.Samiyappan v. The District collector

Madras HC9 Sept 2021WP/18967/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 directing the District Collector to act upon his representation regarding neglect of care by his wife's brother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court directed the Collector to consider the representation and pass orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

M.Samiyappan Vs The District collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. No. 18967 of 2021

¶6

M. Samiyappan.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The District Collector
 Erode District, Erode

¶9

2. A. Marappan.. Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
first respondent to consider and pass order of the representation
of the petitioner dated 12.03.2021 under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizenship Act 2007 as against the
2nd Respondent and his family members within stipulated time to
be fixed by this Hon'ble Court

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr. M. Prabaharan

¶12

For Respondents: Mr. G. Krishnaraja (For R1)
 Government Counsel

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.G.Krishnaraja, learned Government Counsel, takes notice
for the first respondent. By consent of both the parties, this
writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of
admission itself.

¶15

2. According to the petitioner, after the demise of his
wife, the second respondent and his family members were
maintaining and taking care of the petitioner, as the second
respondent is his wife's brother. Pursuant to the same, thee
petitioner decided to settle his wife property at Door No.3/276-
2, Saravanan Nagar, Udukuli Road, Sennimalai Town, Perunthurai
Taluk, Erode District, to the second respondent's daughter and

¶16

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

¶17

accordingly, he did so by executing a settlement deed bearing
Doc. No. 2703/2018 on 19.09.2018. Thereafter, the second
respondent failed to take care of the petitioner and he neglected
to provide the basic needs to him. So, the petitioner left out of
his house and is living separately and subsequently, sent a
representation to the first respondent on 12.03.2021, requesting
to take action against the second respondent and his family
members under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. However, no action has been
taken on the same, till date. Therefore, the petitioner has come
up with this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the
first respondent in this regard.

¶18

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before
this court.

¶19

4. Considering the limited relief sought in this writ
petition, this court, without going into the merits of the case,
directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 12.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on
merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5.With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.

¶21

 Sd/-

¶22

 Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

 Sub Assistant Registrar
dhk

¶25

To

¶26

The District Collector

¶27

Erode District

¶28

Erode

¶29

+1cc to M/s.R.Murugabharathi, Advocate, S.R.No.45806

¶30

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.46146

¶31

W.P. No. 18967 of 2021

¶32

RR(CO)

¶33

SB(18/10/2021)

¶34

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

M.Samiyappan v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Samiyappan v. The District collector

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

Tmt. Jaya Vs The Secretary

G.Ragavapillai@Ragavan, Vs Inspector General of

B.Muthuvel Vs The Managing Director

V.Muruganandam Vs The Additional Chief secretary/

G.Ramkumar Vs The Tahsildar

V.Vasantha Vs The District Collector