ORDER :

1. The Registry earlier had raised a maintainability issue with regard to the maintainability of the present petition which has been filed seeking to appoint the petitioner as a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person. The maintainability issue was raised by the Registry by relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of G. Nithyanandam vs. Tmt. D. Saritha and Others, 2013 (3) LW 412, wherein, an application filed for appointment of a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person was heard. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge had directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. Earlier there was the Mental Health Act, 1987 and under the said Act, Section 53 enabled a person to get himself appointed as guardian for a mentally ill person by approaching the concerned District Court. However, the Mental Health Act, 1987 got repealed in the year 2017 and it was replaced by a new enactment by name “The Mental Health care Act, 2017” which came into effect from 07.07.2018.

2. In the decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 2013 (3) LW 412 referred to supra, the petition was filed under Sections 3,7 to 10 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Since the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 does not deal with mentally retarded persons or lunatics, the learned Single Judge held the petition filed by G. Nithyanandam in the decision referred to supra (G. Nithyanandam's case) as not maintainable and directed the said petitioner to approach the concerned statutory authority under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999.

3. Ever since the passing of the aforesaid decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the Registry of this Court was not entertaining any petitions filed seeking for appointment of legal guardianship for a mentally retarded person or a lunatic.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent, this Court has got powers to entertain petitions of this nature, even-though “The Mental Health Act, 1987” has been repealed or the replaced enactment viz. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 did not provide for a specific provision enabling this Court to exercise powers for appointment of a legal guardian for a mentally retarded or a lunatic person.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following in support of his submission that under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent, this Court is having the power to exercise jurisdiction for appointment of a legal guardian for a mentally retarded or a lunatic person:

(a) Clause 17 of the Letters Patent

(b) Definition of an “idiot” as found in Black's Law Dictionary.

He would submit that “idiot” referred to in Clause 17 of the Letters Patent as seen from its definition means a person who is afflicted with profound mental retardation as in the case on hand where the petitioner is suffering from 60% mental retardation.

(c) The National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999.

Referring to the aforesaid legislation, he would point out that nowhere in the said legislation, it has curtailed the powers of this Court to appoint a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person. The power of this Court under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent have also not been curtailed. Therefore, he would submit that a litigant has the option of either going before the authority prescribed under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 or approach this Court under Clause 17 of the Le