SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Smt. Kiran Jain and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 3581 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sumant Day, Advocate, Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, G.A.-V

Headnote:

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 5(4) - Jharkhand State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - submitted that respondent authorities - job and constantly demands money - Petition has been filed for issuance direction upon Deputy Commissioner respondent Sub Divisional Officer respondent to pass an appropriate order for evicting respondent from their house situated at Shiva hereinafter to be referred as said house in conformity with provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act in short Act read with relevant provisions of Jharkhand State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules short Rules - Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon respondent to grant protection to petitioners and restrain respondent from interfering in their life with peaceful use occupation and possession house without any obstruction – Held, Exercise of power conferred Section Act Rules has been framed and notified by Social Welfare Women and Children Development Department Government of Jharkhand – Sub rule provides that Deputy Commissioner shall exercise powers and duties conferred sub rule to ensure that provisions of Act are appropriately executed - As per sub-rule Deputy Commissioner has duty to ensure safety of life and property - Senior Citizens – Sub rule empowers Deputy Commissioner to issue directions to any concerned Government or Constitutional Agency or Body functioning in districts per general guidelines of State Government in view of executing duty mentioned sub rule - Though there is no specific procedure prescribed Act for evicting any person who has allegedly occupied immovable property senior citizen illegally and has thereby put senior citizen to mental torture yet from conjoint reading of relevant provisions of both Act and Rules it may be construed that respondent is statutory obligation to take appropriate measures to protect life and property of senior citizens - Respondent may however specify any of his subordinate officers to perform duties conferred and Rules - In present casein appears that application complaint of petitioners has been referred by respondent and as per submission counsel for petitioner said application is still pending – Petition disposed

ORDER :

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Deputy Commissioner Medninagar, Palamau ( the respondent no.1) and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Medininagar (Daltonganj) (the respondent no.2) to pass an appropriate order for evicting the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from their house situated at Shiva Jee Maidan Road, Daltonganj, District- Palamau (hereinafter to be referred as “the said house”) in conformity with the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short “the Act, 2007”) read with relevant provisions of Jharkhand State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (in short “the Rules, 2014”). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant protection to the petitioners and restrain the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from interfering in their life with peaceful use, occupation and possession of the house without any obstruction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the senior citizens. They are the owners of the aforesaid house and have been residing therein since 1984. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are their son and daughter-in-law respectively who have been permitted by the petitioners to reside in the said house. It is further submitted that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 are torturing the petitioners mentally as well as physically. The respondent no. 5 is not engaged in any job and constantly demands money from the petitioners. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 also tried to grab the property of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners filed a complaint before the respondent no. 4- the Officer in-charge, Daltonganj Police Station, Daltonganj on 16.07.2020, however no action was taken. The petitioners also initiated the process of disowning the respondent no. 5 and 6 from their properties and in this regard, a Deed of Disownment was executed on 13.07.2020 and published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ (Jharkhand Edition) on 16.07.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 filed a detailed complaint before the respondent no. 4 under the provisions of the Act, 2007 on 30.09.2020. Though the petitioners had earlier approached the Superintendent of Police, Palamau at Daltonganj on 25.07.2020 by filing a representation stating that no action was taken on the complaint filed in the office of the respondent no. 4, yet nothing was done by the said authority. Even petitioners’ representation was not accepted by the said authority, rather they were directed to approach the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a complaint on the same day i.e. 25.07.2020 before the respondent no. 1 under the Act, 2007 however, the same is still pending. The petitioners thereafter filed application on 08.08.2020 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the Act, 2005”) before the respondent no. 2 seeking information regarding the status of the complaint dated 25.07.2020 which was referred to the said authority by the respondent no. 1 but the desired information has still not been furnished which is violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005 as well as the fundamental rights of the senior citizens. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have completely overlooked the mandate of Section 5(4) read with its proviso of the Act, 2007 and have failed to pass an order within 90 days from the date of service of notice of the application to concerned person. The inaction on the part of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in not proceeding with the application of the petitioners under the Act, 2007 read with relevant provisions of the Rules, 2014 is violative of the strict objective and purpose of the said statute enacted by the legislature. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been ill-treating the petitioners and as such they are not entitled to reside in the petitioners’ house particu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top