IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MONDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13039 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:

1 ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 68 YEARS THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 502

2 AMINA BEEVI AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL HAMEED, THAYYIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 502 BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-I.

2 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT)

(THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688 001

3 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT), THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SH-10, MAVELIKKARA-KOZHENCHERY ROAD, CHENGANNUR 689 121

4 RIYAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, KOCHUTHEKKETHIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 502

5 HASEENA BHAI, W/O.RIYAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KOCHUTHEKKETHIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLY BHAGAM AND MURI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 502 BY ADVS.

V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)

V.JAYA RAGI R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)

NEERAJ NARAYAN N.RAPHY RAJ SR.GP V.K SUNIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the senior citizens, who are the parents of the third respondent. Fourth respondent is the wife of the third respondent. It seems that disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4, which resulted in filing of application under Section 23 of the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and Rules. This resulted in Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in Ext.P6. Though, several contentions were set up by both sides, at present, having regard to the nature of exercise of jurisdiction involved, I am not inclined to go into the disputed question of facts. Suffice to hold that interest of justice will be served, if the appellate tribunal, which is the second respondent is directed to take up Ext.P6 appeal and to dispose it of, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving a reasonable opportinuity of being heard to both sides. Since it was submitted that the contesting respondents 4 and 5 have not received notice in the appeal, I am inclined to direct that the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 shall appear before the appellate authority on 12.08.2021 at 11 AM, on which day, the office of the 6^th respondent shall permit them to mark their appearance. The parties may be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the proceedings can continue before the appellate authority thereafter. However, if for any reason the appellate authority is not sitting on that day or cannot take up the matter on that day due to other administrative exigencies, the matter shall be adjourned to another near day with notice to both sides and they shall participate and continue to participate in all future proceedings.

Writ Pertition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13039/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.711/2015 OF SRO, KARIYILAKULANGARA DATED 25.5.2015 Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE RATIONING AUTHORITY Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.7075/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.2021 DELIV