Plea on Act to take care of parents

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad,June 11: The AP High Court, on Thursday, admitted a writ petition challenging some of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. A division bench comprising Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, while admitting a petition filed by a voluntary organisation - Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution and Education (Cadre) , issued a notice to the Union government to explain its stand on the petition within three weeks.

The court sought to know from the authorities how a simple phrase in the Act which was threatening to nullify the very purpose of the Act crept into the rule book.

The new Act was brought into force in order to protect the lives and properties of older people. According to the new Act, parents who are neglected by their sons and relatives after properties are transferred to them, can either get maintenance from the transferees of such property or reclaim the property through a simple process and as a matter of right.

The petitioner challenged Section 23 (1) of the Act. The relevant Section says that this was applicable to only those old people who transfer their property after the commencement of this Act. Mr N.V. Ananth Krsihan, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that this was discriminatory and rendered the Act helpless for those who had transferred their properties prior to the Act.

He urged the court to remove the phrase “after the commencement of this Act”, from the Act and make it applicable to all those who are suffering after transferring their properties.

HC: Stop GHMC nominations

The AP High Court, on Thursday, stayed the contracts allotted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority to various firms to arrange and advertise on kiosks, glow signboards at central media, road divider railings, hoardings on nomination basis.

Justice G. Rohini, while dealing with a petition filed by one Mr Srikanth Inapurapu, a resident of the city, observed that contracts awarded by the GHMC and HMDA should be done only after calling tenders and then award works as per Section 126 to 129 A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.

The petitioner alleged that the GHMC awarded contracts to one firm under different names and said that it had influence in the government to secure contracts on a nomination basis.

He placed the material before the court to show that the contracts were being given on nomination basis. The petitioner contended that the rules provide for tender process and the GHMC cannot be award contracts on nomination basis. The judge was not inclined to accept GHMC’s explanation.