Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ag 8 Ventures Ltd vs Sub Divisional Officer Huzur/Kolar ... on 11 September, 2019
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-18649-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18649-2019
(AG 8 VENTURES LTD Vs SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER HUZUR/KOLAR BHOPAL M.P.)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-09-2019
Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Akshay Pawar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Seth, Advocate for respondent No.2 on caveat.
Respondent No.2 has also moved an application (I.A.No.11167/2019) for seeking dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of maintainability.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. By the instant petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No.1/1A, whereby, the said authority entertaining the application submitted by respondent No.2 under Sections 2(A), 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for brevity "Act, 2007") and the Rules framed thereunder known as the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, has passed an order directing the present petitioner to deposit Rs.1,94,64,194/-
within a period of seven days in the bank account of respondent No.3 / Akriti Senior Citizen Homes "The Nest" Trust (in short "Trust") and also to submit the audit report of the Trust by getting the same audited by the prescribed Auditor of the said Trust and certain other directions including the direction that if amount is not deposited then the proceedings for violation of the same can be initiated under the provisions of the Act, 2007 especially under Sections 5, 8 and 24.
The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is assailing the order impugned mainly on the ground of competency and submits that the dispute which has been raised by respondent No.2 before the authority does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Act, 2007 and therefore such complaint cannot be decided by the authority and no such direction which has been 2 WP-18649-2019 issued against the petitioner could have been issued. It is also contended that the allegations made in the application are akin to a complaint made against the Colonizer and accordingly action should have been taken under the respective Act i.e. Colonizer Act, etc. Further it is contended that the order impugned is violative to the principle of natural justice as the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to put-forth its case and no appropriate reply could be filed. It is also contended that though appeal is available under Section 16 against the order impugned, but here in this case since the question of competence is involved and further in view of the provision of subsection (2) of Section 22 when State has been authorized to make comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal which is nothing but the State Government as per Section 7 of the Act, 2007.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed an I.A.No.11167/2019 for seeking dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of maintainability in which he has very categorically raised an objection regarding not availing the alternative remedy of appeal as available under Section 16 of the Act, 2007. He has relied upon certain judgments showing that the authority, who has passed the order impugned having competence to deal with the issue involved in the case and also on the point that the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal.
The learned counsel for the parties argued at length, however, looking to the nature of the dispute involved in the case and to consider the welfare of the senior citizens who are being claimed to have been deprived from their property which is meant for their welfare and is available for fulfilling their daily needs, prima facie I am of the opinion that notice should be issued to the respondents ignoring the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.2 at this stage.
Accordingly, let notices be issued to the respondents except 3 WP-18649-2019 respondent No.2, on payment of process fee within seven days, returnable within four weeks.
By way of interim measure, the operation of the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 shall remain stayed to the extent of taking coercive action taken against the petitioner pursuant to the order impugned subject to deposit of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lac) in the bank account of the Trust within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the said amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the given time, the interim order shall be deemed vacated. It is also made clear that after filing of the reply by the parties, this Court may also supervise the affairs of the Trust and to appoint a commission to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner and in this regard appropriate direction will be issued on the next date or thereafter.
List on 14.10.2019.
In the meantime, the petitioner may submit a reply to I.A.No.11167/2019 filed by respondent No.2.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by SUDESH
shukla KUMAR SHUKLA
Date: 2019.09.14 10:37:53
+05'30'