IMPORTANT POINT
Deputy Commissioner is under statutory obligation to take appropriate measures to protect life and property of senior citizens.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Shankar, J.—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 petiti