Disposed¶38

S.Manickam v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jul 2025WP/26710/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus under Article 226; senior citizen; cancellation of settlement deed dated 17.04.2023; representation dated 10.06.2025 pending before Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengodu/Namakkal; direction to decide within twelve weeks; enquiry under Senior citizen Act with hearing to petitioner and 4th respondent (son); disposed of; no costs; Madras High Court; N. Mala J.; 22.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus granted by way of final disposal: the 3rd respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2025 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, with the enquiry to be conducted per the provisions of the Senior citizen Act affording adequate hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent; no costs. ¶38

S.Manickam Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2025 seeking cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of his son/4th respondent, and pass orders thereon within a fixed period.

¶36

Court's answer

Since the 3rd respondent had not acted on the representation dated 10.06.2025, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The respondents shall conduct the enquiry as per the provisions of the Senior citizen Act, giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, W.P.No.26710 of 2025 (decided 22.07.2025) — N. Mala, J. — A senior citizen retired from the PWD department, whose first wife predeceased him, had remarried (Thimmakkal, 08.09.2021) and executed a settlement deed dated 17.04.2023 in favour of his son (4th respondent), after which the son allegedly began ill-treating the petitioner and his second wife. Seeking cancellation of the settlement deed, the petitioner sent a representation dated 10.06.2025 to the District Collector, the District Social Welfare Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer; it remained pending without action before the Revenue Divisional Officer (3rd respondent), prompting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mandamus. Holding: since the representation had elicited no action, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 10.06.2025 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, recording that the respondents shall conduct the enquiry per the provisions of the 'Senior citizen Act' with adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Writ petition disposed of with the above direction; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.26710 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.07.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶5

Writ Petition No. 26710 of 2025

¶6

S.Manickam

¶7

... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector Office of the Collectorate Nallipalayam, Namakkal District – 637 003.

¶8

2.The District Social Welfare Officer Office of the Collectorate Combined Building, 1st Floor, Nallipalayam, Namakkal District – 637 003. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Paramathi Road, Tiruchengodu Post, Namakkal District – 637 211. 4.Mr.Gowthem … Respondents Page No.1 of 6

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

W.P.No.26710 of 2025 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2025 within a stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Vivekanandam.

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.K.Suresh, GA for R1 to R3.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the

¶15

petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2025 within a stipulated period that

¶16

may be fixed by this Court.

¶17

The petitioner is a senior citizen and retired from the PWD

¶18

th department. Out of the petitioner's wedlock, the petitioner begot one son/4

¶19

respondent herein. The petitioner's wife died due to ill health. Thereafter, the

¶20

petitioner married one Thimmakkal as 2nd wife on 08.09.2021. The 4th respondent is a civil engineer, and after marriage settled in Coimbatore. The

¶21

Page No.2 of 6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.26710 of 2025 petitioner states that he executed a settlement deed in favour of his son/4th

¶24

respondent, on 17.04.2023, but unfortunately after the execution of the settlement deed, the 4th respondent started ill treating the petitioner and his 2nd

¶25

wife. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 1

¶26

to 3, on 10.06.2025 and the same is pending without any action before the 3rd respondent. As no action was taken on the petitioner's representation, the

¶27

petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶29

Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials

¶30

available on record. With consent of both counsels, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶31

The petitioner a senior citizen submitted a representation on 10.06.2025, to the 3rd respondent, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed,

¶32

executed by him, in favour of his son/4th respondent on 17.04.2023. Since the Page No.3 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3rdrd respondent, despite receipt of the petitoner's representation dated

¶35

W.P.No.26710 of 2025 3rdrd respondent, despite receipt of the petitoner's representation dated

¶36

10.06.2025 has not initiated any action, I am inclined to direct the 3rd respondent, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2025, and

¶37

pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the respondents shall conduct enquiry as per the provisions of the Senior citizen Act, by giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent.

¶38