A.Natarajan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (R. D. O)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.24084 of 2021 A.Natarajan

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Perambur Division, Chennai 600 011.

2. T.Nandhini

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 09.09.2021, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to recover the amount of Rs.4 lakhs from the 2nd Respondent under Section 22 of Senior Citizenship Act, 2017. For Petitioner :

Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban For 1st Respondent :

Mr.M.R.Gokulakrishnan, Government Advocate For 2nd Respondent :

Mr.Nagarajan

O R D E R

Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st Respondent to consider his representation dated 09.09.2021 and for a consequential direction to the 1st Respondent to recover a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the 2nd Respondent under Section 22 of the Senior Citizenship Act, 2017. 2.

According to the Petitioner, he served as an Office Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and retired from service. It is his case that, the 2nd Respondent, who is serving as an Accounts Officer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, approached him and requested to lend her loan of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the Petitioner lent a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as loan to the 2nd Respondent. As the said amount was not repaid by the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

made a detailed representation dated 09.09.2021 to the 1st Respondent under Section 22 of the Senior Citizenship Act, 2017. As no action is forthcoming on the part of the 1st Respondent in respect of his representation, having no other alternative, the Petitioner is before this Court.

3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, a direction may be issued to the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent submitted that, the representation made by the Petitioner under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2017, is not maintainable. 5.Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2017 pertains to grant of maintenance to parents by their children. In the case on hand, though the Petitioner is a senior citizen, he is not a blood relative of the 2nd Respondent and dispute between them in many disputes. Hence, the representation made by the Petitioner under the said Act, is not maintainable.

6.In view of the same, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar (aeb) To:

The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Perambur Division, Chennai 600 011.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.59024 W.P.No.24084 of 2021 RSV(CO) RGA(02/12/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/