← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/18315/2013allowed

V.Murugesan v. The District Collector,

2022-08-08Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 V.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.V.M.Jayalakshmi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate necessary protection to the petitioner's life from the illegal act of the third respondent and consequently, take legal action on the petitioner's complaint given to the first respondent, dated 23.09.2013 and lodged with the second respondent on 24.09.2013.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 No Appearance for R.3

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus as against the official respondents to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and his wife from the illegal acts of the third respondent and consequently, take legal action on his complaint to the first respondent, dated 23.09.2013 and lodged with the second respondent on 24.09.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a senior citizen and the third respondent is his daughter. According to the him, the third respondent had obtained loan for Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) on 29.01.2011 and as a security for the loan, the third respondent had deposited certain original documents with the petitioner. The petitioner has further contended that he was allowed to reside in one of the houses and permitted to rent out the other three houses payment of the loan amount. Though the third respondent has not repaid the loan amount, she started insisting the writ petitioner to give back the original docuemnts that were entrusted as a security. 2/5

3. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had threatened him with certain rowdy elements. Hence the petitioner has presented an application before the respondents 1 and 2.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent is entitled to initiate action under Section 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as against the third respondent herein.

5. I have perused the representation submitted by the writ petitioner to the second respondent herein dated 24.09.2013. In the said representation, the petitioner has made various allegations as against the third respondent attracting the provisions of Section 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

6. In view of the above said facts, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation given by the petitioner on 24.09.2013 and pass orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks after giving due opportunity to the third respondent herein. 3/5

7. With the above said observation, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 08.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

4/5

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

mga 08.08.2022 5/5