The Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act denies the right to be represented by a lawyer as far as the parties are concerned. This question was mooted before the High Court of Kerala and now it is settled position that, in view of the provisions of section 30 of the Advocates Act, the provisions in various statutes which deprives the right of legal representation for the parties had been watered down. In the result, the section 17 of the Senior Citizens Act (in short) cannot be a ground to deny the right to be represented by a lawyer in the proceedings.
However, this aspect is still not known to many of the presiding officers/RDOs exercising jurisdiction on the basis of this Act.
The Decision rendered by High Court of Kerala declared this right categorically. ..
A Latha Sumam V. District Collector 2013 2 KLT 233
"The issue involved in this case is with regard to the right of the petitioner to be represented through a lawyer before the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer in a proceeding filed under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.....
.......... Reliance is sought to be placed on the law declared by the Apex Court reported in 2011
(3) KLT SN 150 ( case number 151) Venkatachalam v.Ajith Kumar C. Shah holding that, it is open for the persons like the petitioner to appoint an 'authorised agent' who can appear on behalf of the party....
.....The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, the idea and understanding of the second respondent with regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, to be represented through a lawyer, is not at all correct. More so, in view of the notification issued by the Central Government bringing Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961 in to force with effect from 15/6/2011......
.........It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, there was an occasion for this Court to have considered similar issue, with reference to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, in respect of the proceedings before the Family Court, in the decision reported in 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of
India. With regard to the decision sought to be relied on from the part of the second respondent, it is seen that it was with reference to the rights and liberties of the party to be represented before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, 'through an authorised agent'. It however does not relate to the right of a lawyer to enter appearance on behalf of a litigant by virtue of the mandate under Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961.
...............7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, there is no dispute as to the fact that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which was lying dormant right from the date of incorporation, till the parliament decided to give effect to the said provision with effect from 15/6/2011. By virtue of the said provision, the provisions contained in various statutes, restricting the right of a Lawyer, placing an
embargo with regard to the right to appear before the concerned forum Court/Tribunal has rather become watered down. The position has been discussed by this Court in detail as per the decision cited supra ie., 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of India........
However, this aspect is still not known to many of the presiding officers/RDOs exercising jurisdiction on the basis of this Act.
The Decision rendered by High Court of Kerala declared this right categorically. ..
A Latha Sumam V. District Collector 2013 2 KLT 233
"The issue involved in this case is with regard to the right of the petitioner to be represented through a lawyer before the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer in a proceeding filed under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.....
.......... Reliance is sought to be placed on the law declared by the Apex Court reported in 2011
(3) KLT SN 150 ( case number 151) Venkatachalam v.Ajith Kumar C. Shah holding that, it is open for the persons like the petitioner to appoint an 'authorised agent' who can appear on behalf of the party....
.....The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, the idea and understanding of the second respondent with regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, to be represented through a lawyer, is not at all correct. More so, in view of the notification issued by the Central Government bringing Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961 in to force with effect from 15/6/2011......
.........It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, there was an occasion for this Court to have considered similar issue, with reference to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, in respect of the proceedings before the Family Court, in the decision reported in 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of
India. With regard to the decision sought to be relied on from the part of the second respondent, it is seen that it was with reference to the rights and liberties of the party to be represented before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, 'through an authorised agent'. It however does not relate to the right of a lawyer to enter appearance on behalf of a litigant by virtue of the mandate under Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961.
...............7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, there is no dispute as to the fact that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which was lying dormant right from the date of incorporation, till the parliament decided to give effect to the said provision with effect from 15/6/2011. By virtue of the said provision, the provisions contained in various statutes, restricting the right of a Lawyer, placing an
embargo with regard to the right to appear before the concerned forum Court/Tribunal has rather become watered down. The position has been discussed by this Court in detail as per the decision cited supra ie., 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of India........
No comments:
Post a Comment