The order passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.19043/2020 on 04.02.2021 is set aside : HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
The order passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.19043/2020 on 04.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside is upheld by the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of Sunil Kondla v. Saksham Pradhikari And Anuvibhagiya Adhikari through Hon’ble Shri Subodh Abhyankar & Hon’ble Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, JJ .
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants No.1 and 2(herein the petitioners) are the son anddaughter-in-law of respondents No.2 and 3, who are the parents of petitioner No.1. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing separately from their parents who have also other siblings including one unmarried son, who is residing with the respondents and three married daughters. Apparently, the relationship between the petitioners and their parents is not cordial. Hence, as the respondents No.2 and 3 were finding it difficult to maintain themselves, an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2009 was filed by them before the Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Mahlarganj, Indore, District Indore (MP). A notice of the aforesaid application was also served on the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the Competent Authority has passed the impugned order on 30.09.2020, without following due procedure of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice, without referring the parties to the Conciliation as provided u/s.6 (6) of the Act of 2009.
JUDGEMENT
The application under Section 5 of the Act was filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 on 22.07.2020, and after service of notice the appellants herein marked their appearance only on 04.09.2020 (that was the first day of their appearance). The appellants should not have filed the writ petition in the first place itself, as the Act clearly provides for an appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 and the counsel for the petitioners (appellants herein) also failed to inform the Court that there is an alternative remedy available to them.
Click here to read the Judgement
JUDGEMENT WRITTEN BY SHREYA NIDHI