IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44283 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
ARUN KUMAR KEDUKODI S/O LATE DR. K ANANTHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.D-4 ‘DUKE’S MANOR’ MATADAKANI URVA MANGALURU – 575006 (DK). … PETITIONER (By Mr. M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.) AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION MAGALURU – 575001(DK) … RESPONDENT (By Mr. Y D HARSHA AGA) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by respondent the Asst. Commissioner and The Chairman, Parents and Senior Citizen’s Maintenance Tribunal, Mangaluru Sub-Division, Mangaluru (D.K.) at Annex-F to W.P. and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.M.Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 26.04.1996 much before the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the provisions of the Act have no application to the sale deed which was executed in favour of the petitioner as the provisions of the Act are not retrospective in nature. It is further submitted that complaint under Section 23 of the Act could not have been entertained at the instance of one Alice D’Souza who, in no way, is related to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed on 26.04.1996 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has purchased the same from the owner of the property in question. The parents of the petitioner have not transferred the property in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case. For yet another reason, the provisions of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case as the sale deed was executed prior to the date of the provisions of the Act came into force and the said provisions do not have any retrospective application. However, the aforesaid matter has not been appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner while passing the impugned order. The impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, it is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE RV