Shahul Hameed vs Revenue Divisional Officer and Presiding Officer

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 notice issued by the Maintenance Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer).

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is the son of the second respondent, Smt. P.K.Nabeesa Beevi. Smt. Nabeesa Beevi approached the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in the capacity as Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act 56 of 2007). Smt. Nabeesa Beevi approached the first respondent for certain reliefs invoking the provisions of the Act 56 of 2007 seeking protection, provided under the Act against the petitioner herein. Thereafter, by Ext.P1, she made a request to close the proceedings in view of the delay and also on account of some other reasons. Based on the above request, the first respondent closed the proceedings on 27.3.2013 as evident from Ext.P2. However, as per Ext.P3, the first respondent appears to have reopened the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. Ext.P3 is dated 26.6.2013. It is challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

The challenge in this writ petition is against reopening of the proceedings and the questioning power of the first respondent to reopen. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another, , wherein it was held that the Tribunals are creatures of the statute and derive their power from express provisions of statute and if power of review has not been expressly given by the statute, such Tribunal cannot exercise such power.

Act 56 of 2007 is a welfare legislation envisaging the constitutional goal to protect senior citizens and parents in terms of Part IV of the Constitution of India under the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically with reference to Article 41.

I am of the view that the provisions of the Act 56 of 2007 cannot be bartered away or contracted out. The statute, one being to sub-serve the welfare measures of the senior citizens, based on sound public policy emanating from constitutional provisions afore-noted, there cannot be any relinquishment of the right so created under the statute. It is also to be noted that u/s 5(1) of Chapter II of the Act 56 of 2007, an application for maintenance u/s 4, can be made by a senior citizen or in case, if he is incapable, by any other person or organization or by the Tribunal suo motu. In view of the fact that the Tribunal is vested with the power to initiate suo motu actions against the persons, who are liable to protect senior citizen, the argument that the Tribunal has no power to reopen the proceedings, is untenable. Ext.P3 could be treated as a notice initiated suo motu by the Tribunal even ignoring Exts.P1 and P2. The decision relied upon by the petitioner has no bearing as the Maintenance Tribunal does not become functus officio after the order passed closing the proceedings as the cause of action for approaching the Tribunal on the ground envisaged under the Act 56 of 2007 is recurring. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is fully justified in issuing Ext.P3. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.