NOORJAHAN Vs. REJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 4 to 8 in WPC No.19047 of 2014 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent in exercise of his powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered with notice to the first respondent also. It is this judgment which is under challenge.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) A reading of the judgment under appeal shows that the learned Single Judge interfered with Ext.P5 whereby Ext.P3 settlement deed executed in favour of the first respondent was revoked and set aside, only on the ground that the order was passed without issuing notice to the first respondent for affording him an opportunity of hearing. This direction to afford the first respondent a fresh opportunity is attacked by the learned counsel for the appellants by contending that the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer after issuing notice and despite service of notice, there was no appearance or representation for the first respondent. However, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the address of the first respondent, as shown in Ext.P4 application filed by the deceased before the RDO, is different from the present address of the first respondent as indicated in paragraph</i>-8 of the writ petition. In such a situation, we will have to necessarily uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order was passed without affording the first respondent an opportunity of being heard. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the judgment under appeal.