IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.176 of 2009 Santosh Kumar Thakur, son of Late Ram Nandan Thakur, resident of Ward No. 21, At, PO & PS Supaul, District-Supaul. Versus Mithilesh Devi, wife of Raj Kumar Jha and daughter of Late Ram Nandan Thakur, resident of At, PO Pachrukhi, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Alok Kr. Agrawal, Advocate. ----------- 2. 27.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant The appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the District Judge, Saharsa in Guardian Case No. 1/2006 by which he has dismissed the application of the appellant, Santosh Kumar Thakur for appointing him as Guardian of Govind Gopal, his younger brother and refused his prayer. The aforesaid application was filed by the appellant under Sections 50,51,52 and 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. It was stated therein that the same was required for the purpose of getting the benefit of pension of his father with respect to said Govind Gopal claiming that he was 60% mentally disabled. According to the evidence of the Civil Surgeon examined on behalf of the applicant, the said Govind Gopal was 60% mentally retarded. The Medical Board also found that the said Govind Gopal was mentally retarded and he can perform his normal work satisfactorily. On the basis of the aforesaid uncontroverted evidence, the court below came to the finding that Govind Gopal is 2 mentally retarded to the extent of 60%. It further took into account Section 2(l) of the Act which states that a mentally ill person means a person who is in need of treatment by reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation. The Court below accordingly on examination of Sections 50,51,52 and 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 found that those provisions for the appointment of Guardian are applicable only in the case of a mentally ill person which does not include a mentally retarded person. For the said reason, the application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to impress upon this Court that the appointment of Guardian is essential for getting the benefit of family pension to the younger brother of the appellant as per the requirements of the letter dated 3.8.2006 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer to the Chief Post Master, GPO, Patna, a copy of which was also communicated to the appellant’s brother through him. Learned counsel, however, is unable to assail the order of the court below on any legal ground. He is further unable to satisfy this Court as to how the case of the appellant’s younger brother is covered by the provisions of the Mental Health Act since evidently he has been found to be mentally retarded only which has been specifically excluded from the definition of a mentally ill person. It is evident from the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 that the provisions for the appointment of Guardian under the said Act are only with respect to a mentally ill person which, on 3 the basis of the evidence on the record, the younger brother of the appellant is not. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)