KARTHICK Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioner, challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 04.07.2014 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 2338 of 2014, has come before this Court with the present writ appeal.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition.

(3.) MR . V. Sitharanjandas, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the claim of the second respondent could not be accepted in view of the letter of consent on 17.03.1997 executed by her before the first respondent recognising him as a trustee and that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is unsustainable in law for the reason that when there is no vacancy as on the date of the application filed by the second respondent, the question of appointing her as one of the trustees, does not arise at all. The first respondent has no powers of review and hence, erred in reviewing the order passed by the then Joint Commissioner, that too, after long lapse of fifteen years, according to him. He further argued that the learned Judge had not considered the legal aspect that any person who is fit and consented thereto, can be appointed as a guardian and hence, it could not be stated that the fifth respondent had to obtain necessary permission to act as a guardian of the writ petitioner. Moreover, he contended that the claim of the second respondent is barred by limitation. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Judge of this Court.