ORDER : (R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.) The revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in an unnumbered MHOP.SR.No.5732 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Pudukkottai challenging the order of return dated 14.10.2024. 2.A perusal of the said petition reveals that it has been filed under Sections 51 , 52, 53 , 54 and 61 of Mental Health Act 1987. As per the averments in the petition, one Mrs.Saraswathi and her husband Srinivasan had passed away on 01.01.2008 and 25.04.2024 respectively leaving behind three sons, four daughters as their legal heirs. Out of them, the sixth child namely Sri.S.Anantha Sayanam is alleged to be a mentally challenged person who is aged about 53 years. It is averred in the petition that he is being taken care of by his elder brother namely Sri.S.Nagarajan. The mentally challenged person is said to have shares in the four items of the property which are mentioned in the schedule. The District Collector, Pudukkottai is arrayed as one of the respondents and the other siblings of the mentally challenged person are also shown as respondents. 3.A prayer has been sought for, to appoint Mr.S.Nagarajan (elder brother of the mentally challenged person) as guardian for the person and property of Sri.S.Anantha Sayanam. This petition was returned by the Principal Sessions Court, Pudukkottai with the following endorsement. “Returned: (1) How this petition is maintainable to be explain. (2)The MHOP petition returned as per order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court O.P.No.731 of 2021 dated 27.01.2022. Hence the MHOP returned. Time 3 days” 4.Challenging the said returned order, present civil revision petition has been filed. 5.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order of return has been passed erroneously relying upon the order passed by this Court in O.P.No.731 of 2021 dated 27.01.2022. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Mental Health Care Act 2017, though has been repealed, the Hon'ble High Court has entertained the above said petition and has proceeded to appoint a guardian for the person or property of the mentally challenged person invoking the powers under Letter Patent Act 1865. In such circumstances, the District Court would continue to exercise its power under Mental Health Act 1987 and therefore, the order of return passed by the Court is not maintainable. In such circumstances, the District Court would continue to exercise its power under Mental Health Act 1987 and therefore, the order of return passed by the Court is not maintainable. 6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that as per Section 6 (b) of General Clauses Act , 1897, if any Act is repealed and a new enactment comes into force, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect so far repealed or anything duly done. 7.He had further relied upon Section 14 of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act , 1999 ( Act 44 of 1999) and contended that as per Section 14 (2) of the said Act, no application can be entertained by the Local Level Committee, unless the consent of the guardian of the disabled person is also obtained. Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel only one of the brother has filed his application to appoint himself as a guardian of the mentally challenged person. The others have not come forward to give their consent. In such circumstances, the petitioner would not be in a position to approach the Local Level Committee as contemplated in Act 44 of 1999. Therefore, the District Court would continue to have its jurisdiction under the Mental Health Act 1987. Hence, the District Court, Pudukkottai may be directed to entertain the application and dispose of the same on merits after hearing other siblings of the mentally challenged person and the District Collector of Pudukkottai. 8.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the Mental Heath Act 1987 has been repealed by the Mental Health Care Act 2017. In such circumstances, the application under Mental Health Act 1987 cannot be filed. He further pointed out that written instruction submitted by the District Collector, Pudukkottai to the effect that the Local Level Committee had already been constituted in the said district and the application could be filed under Central Act 44 of 1999. The said Committee would hear the other siblings of the mentally challenged person and can arrive at a finding, whether one of the siblings namely S.Nagarajan could be appointed as guardian or not. The said Committee would hear the other siblings of the mentally challenged person and can arrive at a finding, whether one of the siblings namely S.Nagarajan could be appointed as guardian or not. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the District Court, Pudukkottai and to relegate the parties to approach the competent authority under Central Act 44 of 1999. 9.Heard the submissions made on the side of the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent. 10. Section 52 and 53 of Mental Health Act 1987 confers power upon the District Court for appointment of guardian for mentally ill person and for managing the property. The present petition has been filed before the District Court, Pudukkottai only invoking the above said provisions. The Mental Health Act 1987 has been repealed under Section 126 of Mental Health Care Act 2017. Before the repealing of Mental Health Act 1987, no proceedings were initiated under the said Act for appointment of a guardian with regard to a person or property. Only if proceedings were already initiated under the repealed Act, such proceedings could be continued. Only in such circumstances, Section 6 (b) of the General Clauses Act 1897 could be invoked. Therefore, as on today, the District Court cannot exercise any power under the Mental Health Act 1987 for appointment of guardian with regard to a person or a property of a mentally challenged person. 11.The Guardians and Wards Act 1890 empowers the Court for appointment of guardian only with regard to a minor. There is no provision for appointment of guardian with regard to a person or property of a mentally challenged person who has already attained majority. This Court in a judgment reported in (2013) 3 LW 412 ( G.Nityanandam Vs. Tmt.D.Saritha and others ) has categorically found that the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 cannot be invoked for appointing a guardian for a mentally retarded person who had already attained majority. 12.The Mental Health Act 1987 was repealed under the Mental Health Care Act 2017. The Mental Health Care Act does not provide for appointment of guardian to a person or property with regard to a mentally challenged person. None of the provisions empower the Court to invoke its jurisdiction for appointment of guardian for a mentally challenged person. Therefore, no application can be filed under the Mental Health Care Act 2017. The Mental Health Care Act does not provide for appointment of guardian to a person or property with regard to a mentally challenged person. None of the provisions empower the Court to invoke its jurisdiction for appointment of guardian for a mentally challenged person. Therefore, no application can be filed under the Mental Health Care Act 2017. 13.The only enactment that provides for appointment of guardian for a person and property of a mentally challenged person is National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act , 1999 (Hereinafter called as “Central Act 44 of 1999”). Section 13 of the said Act provides for constitution of Local Level Committee headed by the District Collector. The said Committee is empowered to appoint any person of their choice to act as a guardian of the person with disability. One of the parents or his relative of the mentally challenged person can make an application. The persons who are authorised to apply for guardianship are enumerated under Regulation No. 11 of the Board of the Trust Regulations, 2001 framed under the said Act. It also declares the duties of the guardian and provides procedure for removal of the guardian. 14.It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in view of proviso to Section 14(2) of the Central Act 44 of 1999, an application to Local Level Committee is not possible due to the fact that there is no consent among the siblings. A perusal of the said proviso indicates that if there is already a guardian for such a mentally challenged person, the consent of the said guardian has to be obtained before entertaining an application. In the present case, admittedly so far, no guardian has been appointed under any one of the enactments. Therefore, the said proviso would not be a bar for filing an application invoking Central Act 44 of 1999. 15.This Court in a judgment reported in ( 2013) 3 LW 412 ( G.Nityanandam Vs. Tmt.D.Saritha and others ) has categorically held that only the Central Act 44 of 1999 has to be invoked for the purpose of appointing a guardian with regard to a person or property of a mentally challenged person. 15.This Court in a judgment reported in ( 2013) 3 LW 412 ( G.Nityanandam Vs. Tmt.D.Saritha and others ) has categorically held that only the Central Act 44 of 1999 has to be invoked for the purpose of appointing a guardian with regard to a person or property of a mentally challenged person. 16.The Principal Bench of High Court has entertained O.P.No.731 of 2021 for appointment of guardian with regard to a mentally challenged person invoking Clause 17 of the Letter Patent Act. Since the Letter Patent Act only empowers the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction, the same cannot be cited for invoking the powers of the District Court. Therefore, the order of return passed by the District Court on 14.10.2024 returning the said application filed under the provisions of Mental Health Act 1987 has to be sustained. 17.In view of the above said deliberations, there is no reason to interfere in the said order. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Local Level Committee constituted under Section 13 of the Central Act 44 of 1999 of Pudukkottai District. Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.