Chittibomma Jhansi Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CHITTIBOMMA JHANSI RANI,, W/O. LATE. CHITTIBOMMA KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 70-12-12, 1ST FLOOR, SHANTHI NAGAR PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.522237

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237

¶15

THE WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT 520001.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA ,NTR DISTRICT. 520002.

¶17

THE SUB COLLECTOR, TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACT, 2007 NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA. 520002.

¶18

2

¶19

CHITTIBOMMA SRIHARI, S/O. LATE CHITTIBOMMA KOTESWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 7-12-12, 2ND FLOOR SANTHI NAGAR, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT- 520 010

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent no.5 in not disposing of the petitioner's application vide case No. of 2025 dated. 19-052025 filed under chapter V of the protection .of life and property of senior citizens r/w. section 8 of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizen act, 2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice, article 14, 21, 300-A of Indian Constitution and consequently direct respondent no.5 to adjudicate my application filed under chapter V of the protection of life and property of senior citizens r/w. section 8 of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizen act, 2007 vide case no. of 2025 and dispose of the same, by fixing specific time stipulation as this hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.JITHENDRA P

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶26

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.6521 OF 2026

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶33

“ to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.5 in not disposing of the petitioner’s application vide case No.-- of 2025 dated 19.05.2025 filed under chapter V of the protection of life and property of senior citizens r/w section 8 of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizen Act, 2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice Articles 14, 21, 300-A of Indian Constitution and consequently direct respondent No.5 to adjudicate my application filed under chapter V of the protection of life and property of senior citizens r/w section 8 of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizen Act, 2007 vide case No of 2025 and dispose of the same by fixing specific time stipulation as this hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders...”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶35

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property admeasuring to an extent of 238 sq.yds having acquired the same through a registered gift deed dated 09.10.2017. The subject property is comprising of ground + three floors. The petitioner has been residing in the 1^st floor and the petitioner’s son/ respondent No.6 is residing in the 2^nd floor. While things stood thus, the respondent No.6 is continuously threatening/ harassing the petitioner to

¶36

4

¶37

vacate from the subject premises. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and so the petitioner allowed the respondent No.6 to stay in the subject house on the condition that he would take care of the petitioner. But the respondent No.6 without taking care of the petitioner, he is trying to dispossess the petitioner and harassing her to vacate the subject house property. For which, the petitioner herein submitted an application dated 19.05.2025 under chapter-V:Protection of Life and Property of Senior Citizens read with Section 8 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act 56 of 2007) to the respondent No.5 requesting to (a) direct the respondent No.6 to evict the schedule premises and handover the vacant possession of the house to the petitioner, (b) restraining the respondent, his men or agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the petitioner (c) directing the Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada for providing security from harassment and (d) granting such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems requisite and proper under the circumstances of the case. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the matter has been adjourned for appearance of parties on 12.06.2025 and thereafter, the matter was taken up twice on 17.06.2025 and 19.06.2025 but the same is not numbered till date. After adjourning the matter on 19.06.2025, so far, respondent No.5 neither proceeded further nor

¶38

5

¶39

disposed of the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the present writ petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007 contemplates to dispose of the application/ representation of senior citizen once received within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. But, in the case on hand, even after lapse of more than 290 days, the respondent No.5 neither proceeded for enquiry till date nor disposed of the representation/ petition of the petitioner.

¶41

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that as per Section 5(4) of the Act, 56 of 2007, the respondent authority concerned has to dispose of the representation/ application submitted by the petitioner or any other senior citizen within a period of 90 days. Admittedly, in the instant case, the representation was submitted on 19.05.2025 and the matter was adjourned thrice thereafter. Therefore, respondent No.5 is under statutory obligation to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that let there be a direction to the respondent No.5 to dispose of the representation/ application dated 19.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner.

¶42

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is an admitted fact that the application/ petition dated 19.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner was

¶43

6

¶44

received by the respondent No.5 and the matter has been adjourned thrice i.e., on 12.06.2025, 17.06.2025 and 19.06.2025. As contended by both the learned counsels, section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007 contemplates as under:

¶45

“5. Application for Maintenance:

¶46

4. An application filed under sub-section (2) for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person:

¶47

Provided that the Tribunal may extend the said period, once for a maximum period of thirty days in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

¶48

On perusal of the Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007, it mandates that any application received by the respondent No.5 under Section 5(4) of the Act, the said application should be disposed of within a period of 90 days. It is not in dispute the said application submitted by the petitioner was received in the month of May, 2025 and almost 290 days was already elapsed. Therefore, it is statutory obligation on part of the respondent No.5 to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner within the time as stipulated.

¶49

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondent No.5 to dispose of the representation/petition dated 19.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner, after conducting detailed enquiry within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶50

7

¶51