Dismissed¶41

Repala Chandraiah v. The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Telangana HC3 Nov 2025WP/5568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 21, 300A; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Section 7; Maintenance Tribunal; RDO/Presiding Officer Khammam; Senior Citizens Case No.A2/SCN/064/2019; non-implementation by Tahsildar, Mudigonda Mandal/Khammam Rural Mandal; Section 151 CPC interim application; family compromise (petitioner and sons); dismissal as infructuous; no costs; Telangana High Court; single judge (K. Sarath, J.). Value: illustrative only of infructuous closure upon compromise between parties; NOT authority on enforcement of senior-citizen Maintenance Tribunal orders.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶41

Repala Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana, And… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent's non-implementation of the Maintenance Tribunal's orders dated 06/02/2020 in Senior Citizens Case No.A2/SCN/064/2019 (clarified by letter dated 16/05/2020) was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A, warranting a writ of mandamus compelling implementation. (Raised by the petitioner; not adjudicated — petition dismissed as infructuous.)

¶18

Court's answer

Upon recording that learned counsel for the petitioner had no instructions to proceed and that, per counsel for respondent No.4, the dispute had been compromised between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents after filing of the writ petition, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶43-44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (K. Sarath, J.), 03.11.2025 — W.P. No.5568 of 2021, Repala Chandraiah v. State of Telangana & others: The petitioner (aged 72, agriculturist) sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Mudigonda Mandal (3rd respondent) to implement the orders dated 06/02/2020 of the Maintenance Tribunal (RDO/Presiding Officer, Khammam), constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in Senior Citizens Case No.A2/SCN/064/2019, as clarified by the Tribunal's letter dated 16/05/2020, alleging violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A; IA No.1 of 2021 under Section 151 CPC sought interim implementation. At hearing, petitioner's counsel stated he had no instructions; counsel for respondent No.4 (the petitioner's son) submitted that the dispute had been compromised between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents after filing. Recording these submissions, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs and closed pending miscellaneous petitions. No issue on merits was decided; the order carries no precedential value on enforcement of Maintenance Tribunal orders.

¶1

I³³⁰² I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5568 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

R-epala Chandraiah, son of Appaiah, Aged about 72y'ears, occ. Agriculture, resident of Thallampadu (Village), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam Dislrict.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary; Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Presiding Officer, Khammam. (Maintenance Tribunal Constituted Under Section 7 of Maintenance and Welfire of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007)

¶13

The Tahsildar, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶14

Repala Upender, Son of Chandraiah, Occ. Agriculture, resident of H.No.1-53/ 1, Thallampadu Village, Khammam Rural Mahdal, Khammam District.

¶15

Repala Nageswara Rao, Son of Chandraiah, Occ. Business, resident of

¶16

.^{H.No.20-1O717,Jawahar Road, Manchiryal Mandal} and District 504208.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly the 3rd respondent in not implementing the orders of the 2nd respondent dated OOl02l2O20 in Senior Citizens Case No.A2lSCN064l2O19, which further clarified by the 2nd respondent through Letter dated 1610512020 addressed to the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently

¶19

direct tl^e 3rd respondent to implement the orders dated OO!O212O2O in Senior Citizens Case No.A2|SCA/06412O19 passed by the 2nd respondent, forthwith.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanceis stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent i.e., Tahsildar, Khammam Rural Mandal to implement the orders dated 0610212020 passed by the 2nd respondent in Senior Citizens Case No.A2 / SCfu06412019 without troubling the petitioner anymore, pending disposal of the writ petition and save the old aged petitioner and his wife from mental anC physical harassment.

¶22

Counselfor the Petitioner : SRI J.P.SRIKANTH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.lto3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

counselfc'r the Respondents No.4 : sRl G.RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶25

Counselfor the Respondents No.5 :

¶26

The Court rnade the following: ORDER

¶27

:i.:l,"n.i:j+ ,,..,.:st# . ..-,,it;iJil L:,1:iii{i:iq.: -liiliil:Ed

¶28

t\ tt

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.5568 of 2O2l

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the respondent No.4. perused the material on record.

¶34

Learned Courrsel for the petitioner submits .that^{he has no instructions} to proceed further in this matter and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that after filing of the writ petition, the dispute has been compromised between the petitioner and unofficial respondents. In view of the san:te, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication or

¶37

I I i ii

¶38

no frrrther orders are required^{to be passedin this}

¶39

matte:r, hence, requested to^{pass appropriate orders}

¶40

fi. Recording^{the aforementionedsubmissions,}

¶41

this V/rit Petition is dismissed^{as infructuous.No order}

¶42

as to^(rosts