Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38350 of 2019 Petitioner :- Lakshmikant Rai And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Ram Yadav,Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents no. 2 to 5, the State authorities for ensuring life and liberty of the petitioners and their property and to restrain the respondents no. 6 to 11 who are private persons from harassing and torturing them and from ousting them from the house in question. The petitioners are seeking the said benefits under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
The petitioner no.1 as per the affidavit filed in support of the petition is aged about 52 years whereas the petitioner no.2 is a young person and petitioner no.3 is a minor. The definition of the senior citizen as contained in Section 2(h) of the Act clearly shows that only a person who has attained the age of 60 years or above can be categorized as senior citizen.
In view of the above definition of the senior citizen as contained in the Act, none of the petitioners are senior citizens.
The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are not the parents of the private respondents. The petitioner no.1 may be covered under the definition of the parents as contained in Section 2(d) of the Act but is not entitled to any benefit under the Act or Rule 21 of the Rules framed thereunder, inasmuch as both the aforesaid provisions are applicable to the senior citizens only.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the District Magistrate has no role to play in the personal dispute of the petitioners with private respondents and it is for the petitioners to settled the same either by mutual consent or with the good offices of their relatives or by taking recourse to the legal remedy that may be available to them.
The writ petition for the above purpose is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Imroz