AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mohammed Shafi K., learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel for the 4th respondent bank as well as Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned Amicus Curiae (Mental Health).
The petitioner is stated to be the sole surviving son of one Jameela Beevi, aged 77 years, who is stated to be bedridden due to old age and is also stated to be a psychiatric patient. The petitioner points out that substantial amounts are lying in the bank account of the mother with the 4th respondent bank and because of the state of the mother, the amounts could not be withdrawn. The petitioner points out that, with reference to the certificate issued by the third respondent herein at Ext.P2 that her mother requires extensive treatment for which expenses are also required and seeks appropriate directions to the respondent bank to release the amount lying in the credit of the bank account as above to the petitioner herein.
Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned amicus curiae points out that the petitioner in fact ought to have approached the District Court with reference to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 14) and without availing the afore remedy, the petitioner would not be in a position to seek further reliefs as prayed for in the captioned writ petition.
On a prima facie consideration of the averments contained in the writ petition as well as the submissions made across the Bar, this Court is also of the opinion that it is for the petitioner, claiming to the son of Smt.Jameela Beevi to make an appropriate application before the District Court in accordance with law, as stated above. This is especially so, since no details other than the family membership certificate at Ext.P1 has been relied on in the writ petition for seeking a relief as noticed above.
Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek for the reliefs as noticed above, the captioned writ petition would stand dismissed.
Needless to say that if such an application is being presented to the District Court, the District Court to expedite the disposal of the afore, taking note of the health condition of the mother of the petitioner. A decision requires to be taken as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of presentation of the application.