C.P.Anandakrishnan v. District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/19TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No.33562 of 2014 (U) -------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- C.P.ANANDAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, POURNAMI, CHEMMAKADU.P.O., PANAYAM, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU.
RESPONDENT(S):- ----------------------------
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-1.
2. CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001.
3. HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, LAKSHMI SREE, CHEMMAKADU.P.O., PANAYAM, KOLLAM-691601.
4. AJITHA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. HARIKRISHNAN, LAKSHMI SREE, CHEMMAKADU.P.O., PANAYAM, KOLLAM-691601.
R1 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.A.JALEEL I/B. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.FAZIL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
WP(C).No.33562 of 2014 (U) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- EXT.P1.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-7-14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- ----------------------------------------- NIL.
Vku/- [ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33562 of 2014-U ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of June, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the child of respondents 3 and 4, who is his nephew, is not being provided with the basic education, i.e., he is not attending a school.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader, who appears for respondents 1 and 2, on specific instruction received in this regard, would submit that the child of the respondents 3 and 4 is nine years old and that the Child Welfare Committee, the 2nd respondent, had many a time tried to persuade the child to attend school, which failed on the child refusing to attend school. The contention raised by the petitioner is that, the 3rd respondent is an alcoholic and the 4th respondent is a mentally insane person.
3. In the above circumstance, the petitioner, as the uncle of the minor child, would have to take appropriate proceedings before the District Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for appointment of the petitioner as guardian of the child. Leaving open such remedy, the writ petition would stand closed.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/- [true copy]