AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court took suo-motu cognizance on the basis of a letter petition concerning an elderly woman, Smt. Vidya Devi, aged 95 years, residing in Block No. 16 Set No. 6, SDA Colony Vikas Nagar, who was described as being in weak mental condition, suffering from an ailment and without anyone to attend to her. On 20.12.2017 the Court issued directions: it directed the District Judge, Shimla (Chairman, District Legal Services Authority) to visit the lady's house and to coordinate with Social Welfare Department officers to arrange immediate medical treatment and, if required, shifting to an Old Age Home; directed the Registrar General and the Deputy Advocate General to communicate the order by telephone; appointed Ms. Bhavna Dutta as Amicus Curiae and directed the Registry to supply a paper-book to her; and directed the Amicus to contact the complainant and visit the lady's house. The matter was listed for 21.12.2017.

On 21.12.2017 the Court was informed that Smt. Vidya Devi had died at 10:30 am on 20.12.2017. The Amicus Curiae and the District Judge had visited the spot and the District Judge submitted a report. The death was reported to the police and consequential action taken. The dead body was kept in the mortuary of IGMC, Shimla; the SHO had intimated relatives and the body was to be handed over to relatives for cremation or, if relatives did not come forward, the last rites would be performed in accordance with law. Subsequently the Additional Advocate General informed the Court that the police had handed over the dead body to the granddaughter, who performed the last rites. The Court thereafter closed the petition and recorded appreciation for the efforts of the Amicus Curiae. The order included "Copy dasti."

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's procedural steps and reasoning as recorded in the opinion are:

  1. On receipt of the letter petition, the Court took suo-motu cognizance and issued immediate directions to the District Judge (Chairman, District Legal Services Authority), Social Welfare Department, the Registrar General and the Deputy Advocate General to take steps for medical assistance and, if necessary, shifting the elderly lady to an Old Age Home. The Court also appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist and to obtain further information from the letter petitioner.
  2. The Amicus Curiae and the District Judge complied by visiting the spot and reporting to the Court. The Amicus recorded the statement of the letter petitioner.
  3. The Court's subsequent factual finding was that the deceased had expired and that the police had been informed and had taken consequential action; the dead body had been kept in the mortuary and were to be handed over to relatives, failing which the last rites would be performed as per law.
  4. After being informed that the dead body had been handed over to the granddaughter and that the last rites had been performed, the Court concluded there was no reason to keep the petition pending and closed the matter.

The analysis is factual and procedural: the Court initiated protective measures, received reports of compliance and factual developments (death and police action), and terminated proceedings when the immediate relief sought by the letter petition became moot due to the death and due to appropriate actions having been taken by authorities and relatives.

Holding and Implications

The petition was closed.

Direct consequences: the Court disposed of the suo-motu petition because the subject of the petition (Smt. Vidya Devi) had expired and the police and relatives had taken the described actions (mortuary custody, handing over the body to relatives, and performance of last rites). The Court recorded appreciation for the Amicus Curiae's assistance and directed service of the copy ("Copy dasti").

Broader implications: the opinion does not discuss or establish any new legal precedent beyond the orders and actions taken in this particular factual and procedural context.

    Court On Its Own Motion Petitioner v. State Of H.P. And Anr. S

    Sanjay Karol, A.C.J (Oral):— On the basis of a letter petition, this Court taking suo-motu cognizance issued notice to the State and on 20.12.2017, passed the following order:—

    “As per averments made in this letter petition, an old lady, namely Smt. Vidya Devi, aged 95 years, residing in Block No. 16 Set No. 6, SDA Colony Vikas Nagar, who is in a weak mental condition, is suffering from an ailment. Unfortunately, there is nobody to attend to her. Perhaps, she is to be shifted either to the hospital or an Old Age Home.

    We direct the District Judge, Shimla, who is Chairman of the District Legal Service Authority to immediately visit the house of the lady by getting in touch with the officers of the Social Welfare Department. An arrangement for immediate medical treatment of the said lady be made. Also if required, an arrangement for her shifting to an Old Age Home in the State be made.

    “The Registrar General of this Registry is directed to communicate the order on telephone to the District Judge, Shimla.

    We also direct, the Director, Child and Women Welfare Department to do the needful. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General undertakes to communicate the order on telephone.

    Ms. Bhavna Dutta, Advocate, [Mob. No. 94180-26120 & Email. Advbhavanadatta@gmail.com], who is present in Court, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Registry is directed to supply paper-book, complete in all respects, to learned Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae undertakes to get in touch with the complainant, informing the pendency of the proceedings and also ascertain as to whether any further information for adjudication of the present lis is required to be furnished.

    The learned Amicus Curiae states that she shall also visit the house of the lady during the course of the day. List on 21st December, 2017.”

    2. On 21.12.2017, we were informed that the lady namely Smt. Vidya Devi, had already expired and as such, we passed following orders on 21.12.2017:—

    ”Pursuant to our order dated 20.12.2017, learned Amicus Curiae visited the spot and also recorded the statement of letter petitioner Mr. Mahinder Pal. Also, the District Judge, who is the Chairman of District Legal Services Authority, Shimla, visited the spot and has submitted his report.

    2. Unfortunately, Smt. Vidya Devi, in relation to whom, the letter petitioner had sought intervention of this Court, expired yesterday at 10.30 am. The matter was reported to the police and consequential action taken, in accordance with law.

    3. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, under instructions from Mr. Satya Pal Singh, Law Officer, Directorate of SC, ST and Minority Affairs, states that at present, dead body of Smt. Vidya Devi has been kept in the mortuary of IGMC, Hospital, Shimla. SHO, Chhota Shimla, Police Station (East) has already intimated the relatives about the death. He further states that the dead body shall be handed over to the relatives for cremation. However, in the event of relatives not coming forward, the last rites i.e funeral, shall be got performed in accordance with law.

    4. Mr. Mahinder Pal, letter petitioner, who is also present in the Court, confirms about the action taken by the police. List on 4.1.2018”

    3. Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General, states that police has handed over the dead body to the grand-daughter of the deceased, who in turn, has performed her last rites.

    4. In view of the same, we see no reason to keep alive the present petition and as such, the same is closed. Before parting, we wish to place on record appreciation qua the efforts put in by Ms. Bhavana Datta, learned Amicus Curiae, who on the instructions of this Court, contacted letter petitioner and obtained necessary feedback.

    5. Copy dasti.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Court On Its Own Motion Petitioner v. State Of H.P. And Anr. S
    (Jan 11, 2018)