Dismissed

R. Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Feb 2026WP/32591/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A son challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011, which empowers the District Collector to evict children from a senior citizen's property. The Division Bench upheld the Rule as intra vires the 2007 Act, held the petition a collateral attempt to delay eviction, and dismissed it.

What the court decided

AI extract

R. Srinivas Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

o[ 3488 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

MONDAY, THE^{SIXTEENTHDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENWSIX}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRt APARESHKUMAR SINGH} AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE^{G.M. MOHIUDDIN}

¶6

ITP 3 OF

¶7

Between:

¶8

R. Srinivas. S/o. R.^{Manohar,Aged: 44 yeqs,Occ: Business' R/o' H No 4-2-122'} Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad^{Town, AdilabadDistrrct'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary' .Department^{for Women'} ' Cilii^;;, Di"l6-led dnd Senibr Citizens, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

¶12

2.TheAppellateTribunal,TelanganaState]vlaintenanceandWelfareofParents and Senior Citizens,^{ned.OV ifr" Oi.lrictCoilector, Adilabad AdilabadDistrict.}

¶13

R. Manohar,^{S/o. LateGovindu,Aged 80years,Occ Retire^d'fl/o'H' No 4-} " z-rii, nl.iiaiUicoronv. Aoitaoao iown, Adilabad District - 504001'

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court may be} pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirection,moreparticularlyoneinthe natureofWritofMandamusandDeclaration,andDeclarethesub-rule3ofRule 2loftheTelanganaMaintenanceandWelfareofParentsandSeniorCitizens Rules, 2011 as^{Unconstitutional, u/fra vlresto Parent Statute' i'e'' Maintenance &} WelfareofParentsandSeniorCitizensAct,200Tbeingexcessivedelegation,and Consequently,^{set-asidethe proceedings bearing C1139412023againstthe} Petitioner herein^{on the file of RespondentNo' 2'}

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1^{OF 2t)25}

¶18

petition under section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fik-"d in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to stay} all further^{proceedings bearing File No. c1t3g4l2}23on the file of the Respondent} No. 2,^{pending disposal of the Writ Petition'}

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2'025

¶20

Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} amend the^{merin prayer of the affidavit and writ petition by substitutingthe words} "Consequently, set-aside^{the proceedings bearing C1t39412023against the} Petitioner^{here:in on the file of RespondentNo' 2" with words "Consequently'set-} aside the Ordt:r^{dated15-12-2025 passed by the RespondentNo' 2 in Procs' No'} c1139412023-1"

¶21

lA NO: 3 OF²⁰²⁵

¶22

Petition under^{section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the^{Orderdated15-12-2025passed by the RespondentNo' 2 in Procs'} No. C1 t3g4l2ct23-1,^{pendingdisposal of the presentwrit petition'}

¶23

lA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under^{section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to direct} the Respondent^{No. 2 to producethe entire record including proceedings record of} each date of^{adjournmentin procs. No. C1l394t2023-1, pending disposal of the} present Writ Petition.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

R. Manohar,^{s,/o. Late Govindu, Aged: 80 y99r9, occ: Retired, R/o' H' No' 4-2-122'} i#i;;i1i ;oto,',y,^{Adilabadrown, AdilaoaoDistrict} -^504001'

¶28

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT^No'3

¶29

AND

¶30

:'l'r;..:.,:']1iE.if."'rym].:5ij*i,.;.=rJ

¶31

R. Srinivas, S/o. R. Manohar, Aged:'44^{years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H. No. 4-2-} 122, Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad Town, Adilabad^District.

¶32

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETIT!ONER

¶33

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department^{for Women,} Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶34

The Appellate Tribunal, Telangana State Maintenance^{andWelfare of Parents} and Siirior Citizens, Rep. by t6e District Collector, Adilabad^{AdilabadDistrict.}

¶35

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos.1 &²

¶36

Petition under Section^'t51 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the interim order dated 05-01-2026 in WP^{No.32591 ot 2025 and dismiss} the said writ^petition.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMAR

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: SMT. K. MANI^DEEPIKA, GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT &^{CHILD WELFARE}

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A. PRANEETH,^REPRESENTING SRI P. LAKSHMA REDDY

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELIINGANA} AT IIYDERABAI)

¶42

THE HON'rBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI^{APARESH Kt MARSINGH} AND

¶43

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶44

WRIT PETITION o.32S9L of 2o25

DATE: 16 .02.2o126

BETtrIEEN:

R.Srinivas

....Petitioner

A.ND

State of Telangana and 2 others

¶51

....Respondent

¶52

ORDER

¶53

firer^{Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)}

¶54

Heard S.ri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.K.Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader for Women and l)evelopment appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma^Reddy, learned coun:;el for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

¶55

This Wr:it Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶56

of India, with the following prayer:

¶57

"....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more^{particularly one} in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus and Declaration, and Declare the subrule 3 of Rule 21 of tlrc Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seni'tr Citizens Rules, 2O1I as Unanstitutional, ultra vires to^Parent Statute, i.e., Ilaintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens^Act, 2007 being excessiue^{delegation, qnd} Consequentlg, set-aside^the proceedir',gs bearing C1/394/2O23 against the Petitioner herein on the file^{of Re.;pondentNo.2,and pass such other orderas fhfs Hon'bleCourt} mag deen fit in the best^{interest of} iustice"^.

¶58

Factual Matrix (in brieQ

¶59

The petitioner is the third son of respondent No.3, a senior citizen aged about 80 years, who is the absolute owner of residential prennises bearing H.No.4-2-122, situated .at Ranisatiji colony, Adilabad. The genesis of the dispute traces to the year 2023, when respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before the Revenue Divisional oflicer (RDo), Adilabad, alreging that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied portions of the said house, failed to provide maintenance, broke open the lock of a shop belonging to the wife of respondent No.3 and locked the common latrine, thereby causing hardship to the aged parents.

¶60

4' The complaint was forwarded to the District Collector, Adilabad, who, upon issuance of notice and conducting an enquiry, passed order, dated 27.o2.2o24 in R.c.No.cL/3g4/2o23 (Ex.p6) dismissing the request for eviction, taking note of thc deposition of the petitioner's mother that the petitioner and his wife were taking proper care of them, while advising the children to treat respondent No.3 with dignity.

¶61

An appeal preferred by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.s L /55512024 before the Director/commissioner came to be dismissed by order dated L3.o1.2o2a (Ex.pz), affirming the order of the District collector and observing that property disputes, if any, may be resolved in accordance with law.

we..mlrwry;w

','ffi;1.F.:.;Ej ":i

Subsequently, on^{15.o8.2o24,.respondentNo.3 lodged FIR in} Crime No.333 of^{2024 at Adilabad-t Police Station against the} petitioner and his^{wife for the offences underSections296(bl' 115(2),} 351(2) read with^{3(5) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023, alleging} physical assault and^{abuse on12.08.2024 (Ex.P8)' Thereafter,} respondent^{\o.3 once again approachedthe District Collector seeking} eviction,^{pursuantto whichnotice dated 28.09'2024was issued in} the very sanle^{file Cll394l2023.}

¶68

The petitioner^{questionedthe said notice before this courtin} w.P.No.2 8567 of^{2024 on the ground that the District collector had} become fun<:ttts^{officio and that the principleof res judicata applied'} However, by order^{dated 13.10.2025,the writ petitionwas dismissed} by the learned^{SingleJudge, and the petitionerwas directed to} participate in the^{proceedings.A writ appeal in W.A.No.ll73 of 2025} preferred against the^{said order oflearned SingleJudge in} w.P.No.28567 of^{2024 was also dismissedby the Division Bench on} 24.tO.2025.

¶69

g. During the continuation^{of proceedings before the District} Collector, ce:rtain^{termswereorally agreed uponbetweenthe parties} during the^{hearingon 22.11.2025,includinggrant of time to the} petitioner till February,^{2026 tosecure alternative rented} accommoda::ion, the rent^{of which was to be borne by respondent} n-y' No.3 herein and the^{petitioner wouldvacate thereupon; and a 'Mutual}

¶70

.i4z'.

¶71

Agreement-cum-Undertaking Deed' subsequently^{submitted bore only} the signature of respondent No.3 and contained terms at variance with the oral understanding reached before the District Collector.

¶72

Consequently, by order ciated L5.12.2025 in Proceedings No.Cll394l2023-1, the District Collector rejected the said deed and directed adherence to the mutually agreed terms. Accordingly, thc present writ petition was instituted challenging the validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the 2OIL Rules.

¶73

Contentions of the petitioner

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge to the impugned Rule has raised the follclwing contentions:

¶75

i. That the sub-rule (3) of Rule 2I of the 2O11 Rules inserted bv G.O.Ms.No.4O dated 30. L2.2O22 confers power of eviction upon the District Collector/District Magistrate, an executive authority not possessing judicial qualifications, thereby amounting to an impermissible conferment of^judicial power in rriolation of constitutional principles enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Union oJ India u. R.Gandhi, Presid.ent, Madras Bar Associationr and Madras Bar Associqtion u. Unlon of India and another2.

¶76

'lzoro;rl^{scc I} 2 (2OL4ltO SCC I

¶77

¶78

¶79

ii. That arljudication of eviction disputes, being essentially judicial in character, which are to be adjudicated by civil Courts, cannot be entrusted to a sole non-judicial member lacking safeguards of independence.

¶80

iii. That ttre impugned Rule is ultra uires the parent enactment, namely. Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2Or)7 (for short,'2OO7 ActJ. It was argued that Section 32 thereof does not expressly authorize framing of rules providing for evicr-ion, and that the Act primarily deals with maintenance and declaration of voidness of transfers under Section 23 of 2OOT Act.

¶81

iv. That placing reliance on Kerq.la SDB v. Thomqs Josephs, it was contended that the delegated legislation cannot travel beyond :he scope of the enabling parent statute and that if rule was beyr>nd the rule-making power conferred by the statute, it is liable to declare invalid. That the petitioner had earlier succeedr:d before the District Collector by order dated 27.02.2424 and that subsequent proceedings were barred by principles of res judicata.

¶82

v. That the order dated 15.L2.2O25 was passed in undue haste despite^'rendency of proceedings before this court and the fundame etal rights cannot be waived and that dismissal of the

¶83

3 (2023l' l1 SCC 7Cr0

¶84

¶85

: i I I I I I I II riII I I T I L; T t + { i{I.l :l:t rill :t ]l'trl ;i..' '-i ; i ;t :,! ' iif ' $,T c a! fi $t tt ilt it-!lIt #lit ;iliIrliI:t

¶86

earlier writ petition, would not preclude a fresh constitutional challenge

¶87

vl That where a provision is ex facieunconstitutionar, the court is empowered to grant protective interim orders, particurarry as eviction would render the petitioner homeless.

¶88

The learned counser for the pefitioner in support of his contentions has placecr reliance on the fo,owing decisions:

¶89

i' whirrpoor cotporation a- Registrar of Trad.e Marksa

¶90

' ii' straw products Limited, a- rncome Tax ofJicer ,A' Ward Bhopal and. others_s

¶91

iii. Nonda Kishore a. State of htnjaba

¶92

iv' Dr. Jaishri Laxmanr,o patil a. state of Maharastra and q.notherz

¶93

Contentions of the respondents

¶94

Learned Government pleader for respondent Nos.l and 2 and learneci counser for respondent Nc.3 have raised the forowing contentions:

¶95

i' That the challenge to the impugned Rule is wholly misconceived; the rule-making power under Section 32 of the Senior citizens Act is wide enough to encompass provisions for the protection of life and propert5r of senior citizens. section 22 of the Act specificalry mandates the state Government to prescribe a

¶96

4 AIR 1999 sc 22

¶97

s AIR 1968 sc 579 6 (199s)6 SCC 614

¶98

7 (2021) 2 SCC 785

¶99

,/ /'

¶100

¶101

comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. The Impugned Rule, which enables eviction of children who fail to maintain senior citizens or who occup)' their property without authority, is a necessary corollary of this protective mandate; that Sections 22 and 32 of the 2OO7 Act confer wide rule-making power upon the State to frame measu:es for protection of life and property of senior citizens; and th,at the power of eviction is implicit and necessary to effectuate such protection.

¶102

ii. That ttre District Magistrate, while exercising powers under the Rules, acts as a statutory authority discharging quasi-judicial functions under a welfare legislation, and that the principles laid down in the Mqdras Bar Association (supra 1 and 2) line of cases, pertaining to constitution of Tribunals replacing High Court jurisdiction, are inapplicable to summary proceedings under the Act.

¶103

iii. That the ',r,rit petition is an abuse of process, filed after two unsuccr:ssful rounds of litigation before this Court, solely to delay eviction and frustrate the proceedings instituted by the senior c..tizen.

¶104

iv. That th<: conduct of the petitioner, including the registration of FIR datr:d 15.08.2024 in Crime No.333 of 2024 alleging assault and abuse, justified invocation of the protective provisions.

¶105

/', a"\

¶106

::8::

¶107

v. That the impugned Rule does not travel beyond the parent Act, and that without the power to evict a recalcitrant or abusive child, the object of ensuring dignity and security to senior citizens would be rendered nugatory.

¶108

vi. That the proceedings before the District Collector were conducted in compliance with principles of natural justice, and that the order dated 15.12.2025 was passed after affording adequate opportunity and even exploring an amicable settlement between the parties.

¶109

The learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and additionally contended that the present writ petition is an instance of abuse of due process. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶110

i. Ko,mo,lako,nt Mishra a. Additional Collector and othersa

¶111

ii. Urmila Dixit o. Sunil Sharan Dixit and otherse

¶112

L4. Upon consideration of the pleadings, and the material placed on record, and the rival submissions, the following points are arise for determination:

¶113

i) whether sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2}lt is

¶114

a Civil Appeal (Diary No.42786 of 20251 dated 12.O9.2O2i e (202512 scc 787

¶115

¶116

unconstitutional on the^{grouSrdthat it confers judicial power} upon a non-judicial authoritY?

¶117

ii) Whether the said Rule is^{ultra uires the Maintenanceand} Welfe.re of Parents and Senior^{CitizensAct,2OO7?and}

¶118

iii) Whether, in the facts of^{the present case, the writ petition} amournts to an abuse of^{processof law?}

¶119

Consideration bY this Court

¶120

I. of the

¶121

The rnain controversy of^{the petitioner's challengerests upon} the decisic,ns of the^{Hon'bleSupremeCourt inMadras Bar} Associatiott's case (supra^{1 and 2) which would disclosethat they} dealt with the constitutional^{validity of permanent Tribunals suchas} the NCLT/ I.ICLAT,^{which were constitutedto replace the jurisdiction} of High Cotrrts in Company^{Law matters. The parameterslaid down} therein wer,l in the context^{of bodies exercising powersakin to those} of constitutional Courts and that^{where a Tribunal is vested n'ith} jurisdiction of a High Court, its members must^possessand qualifications and independence^{commensurate with that of High} Court^judges.

¶122

The p::esent case^{standson an entirely different footing, wherein} the District Magistrate,^{while exercising power under Rule 21(3), does} not function as a substitute^{for the High Court or as a permanent} Tribunal vested with^{plenaryjudicial powers. The authorityacts} under a wellare legislation for a limited^{statutorypurpose, namely, to}

¶123

--'-'-'-"-;.tr;i;.:=..E.Es.:;-ffimm.:]sBs&r@}hdFlk.-T-.

¶124

:: l0::

¶125

ensure protection of the life and property of senior citizens. The proceedings are summary in character and intended to provide expeditious relief to a vulnerable class, namely, the senior citizens, who may otherwise be compelled to undergo protracted civil litigation.

¶126

L7. Section 22 of tilre 2OO7 Act is extracted hereunder:

¶127

Authortties who maA be specified for implementing the prouisions of this Act

¶128

The State Gouernment mag, confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magi"strate as maA be neessary, to ensure that the prouistons of this Act are properlg carried out and thie Dist,zct Magbtrate mag spectfg th.e offtcer, subordinate to him, wha shalt exercise all or ang of the pouers, and perform all or ang of the duties, so conferred or imposed and the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the offi.cer as mag be prescribed.

¶129

The state Gouernment shall prescribe a comprehensiue action planfor prouiding protection of life and propertg of senior citiz,ens.

¶130

It is to be noted that Section 22 of the 2ooz Act specifically empowers the State Government to confer such powers upon the District Magistrate to ensure that the provisions clf the Act are properly carried out. Section 22(2) of the Act mandates prescription of a comprehensive action plan for protection of life and property. The Rule in question is traceable to this statutory mandate. The District Magistrate exercises quasi-judicial powers subject to notice, opportunity of hearing, recording of reasons, and availabilit5r of an appellate remedy. such conferment of limited adjudicatory power upon executive authorities under social welfare legislation is neither novel nor constitutionally impermissible.

¶131

::ll::

¶132

Sub-rule (3) was inserted after sub-rule {21^{of Rule 21 byway of} an amendrnent contained^{in G.O.Ms.No.4O dated 30.L2.2O22to the} Telangana Maintenance and^{Welfare of Parentsand Senior Citizens} Rules, 2Oll, prescribing the^{procedurefor eviction from property of} senior citizt:ns/ parents. It^reads:

¶133

(a) (i) A senior citizen/ parent, mag^make an^{applicationbeforethe} Collector & District Magistrate of^{hb/ her district,} for^{euiction of} his/htzr children/legal heir from hb/her^{propertg on account of} his/ her non-maintenance and/^{or ill-treatment.}

¶134

(ii)The Collector & District Magistrate shall^immediately foru.tard^such applicttion to the concemed Sub-Diuisional^{Magistrate/Reuenue} Diuisi<tnal Officer for uerification^{of the title of the propertyand} facts of the case tuithin ftfteen^{(15) dags} from^{the date of receiptof such} applic,ztion.

¶135

(iii) Tte Sub-Diuisional Magistrate/ Reuenue Diuision^{Olficer shall} tmmec'.iately submit his/her report to the^{Collector &District} Magisrrate for final orders within sirta 60)^days from^{the date of} receipt of the application.

¶136

(iu) The collector & Dtstnct Magistrate during summary^proceedings for^{thct protectionof senior citizens/ parentsshall considerall the} releuant prouisions of the Act. If the Collector &^{District Magistrateis} of tLte opinton that any children/ legal^{heir of a senior citizen/parent} is not maintaining the senior^{citizen/ parent and/ or ill-treating} him/ her/ them and Aet is ocanpying the^{propertg of the senior} citizen,/ parent and that theg^{should be euicted, the Collector &} Distric;'. Magistrate shall issue^{in the manner hereinafterprouided a} notice tn writing calling^{upon all persorls concerned to show causeas} to uhA an order of^{euiction should not be issued against} them/lim/hen

¶137

(u)The notice shall;-

::12::

(i) spectfu the grounds on uhich the order of euiction i.s proposed to be made; and

¶143

(ii) reqtire all persons concemed, thnt is to say, all persons taho are, or maV be, in ocatpation of, or claim interest in, the property, to shout cause, if ang, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specifted in th-e notice, being a date not earlier than then (10) dags from^{the date of bsuethereof.}

¶144

(b) Eviction ord.er from propettg of senior citizetdparent:

¶145

If, after considering the cause, if ang, shown by ang person in pursuance to the notice and any euidence he/she mag produce in support of the same and after giuing him/her a reasonable opportunitg of being heard, the Collector & District Magistrate is satisfied thnt the euiction order needs to be made, the Collector & Dbtrict Magi.strate mag make an order of euictton, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the propertg shall be uacated.

¶146

(c) Enforcement of orders:-

¶147

(i) If ang person refused or fatls to complg utith the order of euiction within thirtg (30) dags from the date of ifs issue, the Collector & District Magistrate or anA other olficer dulg authorized bg the Collector & Dbt'ict Magistrate tn this behalf mag euict that person from^{the premises in questionand take possession'}

¶148

(ti) The Collector & District Magistrate shall haue powers to enforce the euiction orders through police and the District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, in case of duties, concerned shall be bound to carry out exeantion of the euiction order;

¶149

(iii) The Collector & Di.strict Magistrate uill further hand ouer the propertg in question to the concemed senior citizen/ parent; and

¶150

(iu) The Collector & Dbtrict Magistrate shalt foruard monthlg report of such ca.ses to the Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Cttizens and Transgender Persons bg 7tn of the foltouing month.

¶151

(d) Appealt

¶152

(i) Ang appeal agatnst the order of the Collector & District Magistrate shall lle before the Commissioner/ Director, Department for Empowerrnent of Persons uith Disabilities, Senior Citizens and r, -2

¶153

-'".:*4 ,,:

¶154

f7qn5:gender Persons, Telongana within thirtg^(3O) days of the issue of the orders bg the Collector & District^Magistrate.

¶155

(ii) Prouisions regarding dbposal of appeal"s before Appellate Tribunal shall apptA mutatis mutand.is to the^{appeals beforethe} Comnrissio ner/ Direct:or, Department for Dmpowerment of^Persons with Disabilities, Sentor Citiz,ens and^{Transgender Persons,} Telanqana."

¶156

2o.. It is evident that the said amendment^{was introduced afterthe} decision in the case of S. Vanitha u.^{Commissioner, Bengalunt} Urban District and othersro wherein it^{was held} that^{the Tribunals} under the ,\ct may order eviction if it is necessary and^{expedient to} ensure the protection of the senior citizen. The exercise^{of such power} is contemp,lated keeping in mind the beneficial intention of^the statute. Section 23 of the Act, which is relevant, is^{referredto herein:}

¶157

"23. Trotnsfer of propertg to be aoid. in certain circumsto,ncesl⁽¹⁾ Where a,zy senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act,^has transferred bA wag of gift or otherwise, his^propertg, subiect to^the condition that the transferee shall^prouide the basic amenities and^basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to prouide such amenities and phgsical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to haue been made bg fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared uoid bg the TibunaL

¶158

(2) Where ang senior citizen hc.s a. right to receiue maintenance out of an estate ar.d such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to^receiue maintencnce maA be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is^gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and wtthout notice of right.

¶159

to lzozl) 15 soc 730

¶160

:, :;i:, , : :,i': ,i. . /: -f .f.: fd3!:":

¶161

¶162

(3) If, anA senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rtghts under subsecfions (1) and (2) action mag be talcen on hb behalf bg ang o!^the organization referred to in Dxplanation to sub-section (1) of section 5."

¶163

The background facts upto lodging of the complaint by respondent No.3-father indicates invocation of the above provision alleging disobedience of the order passed in proceedings No. Cll394/2O23 dated 27.2.2024 by the petitioner for his eviction. Allegations of abuse, beating and threatening with dire consequences by the petitioner and his wife were made in an FIR lodged by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and his r,vife.

¶164

[t is to be noted that the foundation of the petitioner's argument rests upon the premise that every action taken under the 2007 Act, including an order of eviction, is inherently^judicial in character and therefore, must necessarily be decided only by a regular Civil Court. This premise, in our considered view, is fundamentally misconceivcd and proceeds on an incorrect understanding of the statutory framework.

¶165

Further, the power to direct eviction from the property of a senior citizen, as provided under Rule 21(3) of the 2O11 Rules, is not a power to adjudicate intricate questions of title or to determine competing proprietary rights in the manner of a civil Court. It is a protective and preventive power, exercised in a summary manner, to secure possession and enjoyment of properff by a senior citizen, who is pima fag/tne lawful owner and who complains of harassment,

:: l5::

4,L

intimidation, or unlawful occupation. The authority under the Rule does not sit in judgment over complex civil disputes; rather, it intervenr:s to restore peace and ensure that the object of the welfare legislation is not defeated by familial discord or coercive occupation.

¶170

It is well settled that not every conferment of decision_making authority upon an executive officer amounts to unconstitutional delegation of judicial power. The distinction between a Tribunal replacing the jurisdiction of a High court and a statutory authority performing quasi-judicial functions under a beneficial enactment is clear ancl well recognized. Thus, this court cannot accept the contention that Rule 21(3) suffers from constitutional infirmity or that the said Rule does not have the backing of the parent legislation.

¶171

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme court in tlrmila Dfxtt,s case (supra 9) has held as under:

¶172

Be,fore parting with the case at hand, we must clarifg the obseruc'-tions made uide the impugned. ord.er [sunil sharan Dixit u. r]rmila Dixit, 2')22 SCC onLine Mp 37761 qua the competencg of the Tribunar to hand ouer possession of the propertA. /n S. Vanitha [5. Vanitha u. commr.. (202r) 15 scc 73oJ , this court obserued. that rribunars und.er the Act mag order euiction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protectic'n of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said. that the Tribunals corstituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction und.er section .23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This wourd. defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to prouid.e speedy, simpre and. inexpens,iue remedies for the eld_ertg.

¶173

rn Kqrnq.lako,nt Mishra's case (supra g), the Apex court has

¶174

held that:

¶175

:: l6::

¶176

TtLe framework of the Act clearlg notes that the lutt^{was enactedto} add.ress tlrc ptight of older personi, 7or their care and^{protection. Being a} welfare legislation, its prouisions mzsf be^qnstrued ltberally^{so as fo} ad.uance its beneficent purpose. This CourT on seueral occasions has obserued that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order euiction of a child or a relatiue from the propertg of a senior citizen, u.then tlere is a breach of tlrr- obligation to maintain th.e senior citizen.2 In the pre:sent case, despite being financiallg stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properTies owned bg him, therebE frustrating the uery object of the Act. High Court fell in error in allowing the urit petition on a completely untenable grcund.

¶177

In the present case, the eviction contemplated under the statutory scheme is an incident of the broader power to protect life and property under Section 22(21 of the 2OO7 Act. [t is essentially remedial and protective in nature, aimed at safeguarding the person and property of the senior citiz,en from neglect, abuse, or unlawful interference. The characterization of such power as equivalent to the adjudicatory^jurisdiction of a civil Court is, therefore, misplaced.^The authority acts within a confined statutory sphere, guided by principles of natural justice and subject to appellate oversight, and the nature of the power exercised is protective rather than^judicial in the traditional sense.

¶178

II. Whether the Rule is Uttra Vires the Parent Act

¶179

27, It is pertinent to note that th.e 2OO7 Act, is not confined merely to recovery of maintenance under Sections^{4 and} 5.^{Chapter V} of the Act expressly deals with 'Protection of Life and Property of Senior .l r'"

!, '''ryiI

:zl7::

citizen'. siection 22(21 obligates the state Government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing such protection. Section 32 empowers the State Government to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, including matters contemplated under Section 22 of 2OO7 Act.

¶184

The cetitioner has not questioned the uires of the Section 7 of the Act wh..ch relates to the constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal. Sub-section (2) provides that such Tribunal shall be presided over by an oflicer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Oflicer of a State. The impugned rule conlers such power on an officer of the level of District Magistrate that is above the Sub Divisional Magistrate. As noted above, the ,mpugned rule was inserted after the decision in the case of s. vanittha (supra 10) . The impugned rule provides for an enquiry by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional officer for verilication of the title of the property. The proceedings are summary in nature for protection of senior citizenlparent. If the collector and District Magistrate is of the opinion that a child/legal heir of a senior citizenlparent is not maintaining the senior citizenlparent and/or ill-treating him/her/them and yet is occupying the property of the senior citizenlparent and that should be evicted, it is only therr:upon a notice in writing is to be issued calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not tre issued against them specifying the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and required all persons

a (-

::18::

concerned, who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in, the property to show cause if any, against the proposed order by specified date. It is only after consideration of the cause shown by the persons pursuant to the notice and any evidence that he or she may produce in support of the same and after giving him/her a reasonable opportunity, the Collector and District Magistrate, if satislied that the eviction order needs to be made, make an order of eviction for reasons to be recorded therein directing that the property shall be vacated. The impugned rule also provides for enforcement of the order if the persons refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within 30 days. Sub-clause (d) of the impugned rule 3 provides for an appeal to the Commissioner/Director of the Department within 30 days of the issue of the orders of the District Collector and Magistrate.

¶189

As noted above, the power of the Tribunal to order eviction is necessary and expedient to ensure protection of senior citizen as recognized in the case of S. Vanitha (supra 10) and has been further reiterated in the cases of Unnila Dixit (supra 9) and Kamalakant Mishra (supra 8). The legal basis is no longer res integra.

¶190

Further, the protection of property is not an abstract concept. If a senior citizen is deprived of peaceful possession of his property by an abusive or non-maintaining child, the ability to secure restoration of possession is an integral component of protection. The power of eviction is thus not an extraneous addition but a necessary incident

¶191

:: 19::

¶192

of the stattttory objective. The contention^{that delegated legislation} cannot travt:l beyond the Act, as^{reiterated in Kera,la SEB a. Thomas} Josephll, has no application in^{the facts and circumstancesin the} present case. In the present case, the^{Rule operateswithin the four} corners of tiections 22 and 32 of^{2OO7Act. [t merely providesthe} procedural rnechanism to effectuate the^{statutory mandate.It does} not create a nervv substantive^{right alien to the Act.}

¶193

It is also significant that^{the petitioner has not challenged the} Constitutional vatidity of the enabling^{provisions ofthe Act,} particularly Sections 22 or 32 of 2O07 Act.^{A rule framed withinthe} scope of a valid parent statute cannot ordinarily^{be struckdown} unless it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary^{orviolative of} Constitutional provisions. No such case has^{been made out.} Accordingly, we hold that sub-rule⁽³⁾ of^{Rule21 of the 2OLlRules is} intra uires the 20O7 Act.

¶194

III. Conduct of the oetitioner and Abuse of^Process

¶195

On perusal of the record, it discloses that^{respondent No.3 is an} 80 year olcl father seeking peaceful enjoyment of his^property. Proceedings were initiated before the District^{Collector;an earlier} round culrninated in an order dated 27.O2.2O24.^Subsequent complaints, ncluding registration of FIR in Crime^{No.333 of 2024,led} to revival o:: proceedings. The^petitioner challenged^{the notice in}

¶196

"^{1zozs1r r scc 7oo}

¶197

::20::

¶198

W.P.No.28567 of 2024, which^{was dismissed.The writ appeal there} against was also dismissed.^{The petitioner instead of complying with} the directions of this Court and^{participating in the proceedings in} their true spirit, has chosen to^{mount a constitutional challengeto} the Rule itself at a belated^{stage, after suffering adverseorders.} Further, multiple interlocutory^{applications have been filed seeking} stay, amendment, and suspension^{of orders, thereby prolongingthe} Iis.

¶199

It is trite that the^{jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the} Constitution is discretionary^{and equitable. A litigant invoking such} jurisdiction must approach the Court with candour and^bona fides. When a challenge to uires is^{raised not as a genuineconstitutional} grievance but as a tactic to delay implementation^{of lawful orders, the} Court is entitled to take^note of^{such conduct. Therefore, by} considering the available^{materialon record, we are of the considered} opinion that the^{presentwrit petition is not a bona} fide^{constitutional} challenge but a collateral attempt^{to frustrate the statutory remedy} invoked by an aged parent.

¶200

g4. The present case is a sad reflection on the erosion of family values and respect for parents. The^{Maintenance of Welfare of} Parents and Senior Citizens Act,^{2OO7 was enacted preciselyto} address such situation and^{provide a swift remedyto senior citizens.} The law must speak firmly in^{such cases. It must not merely ensure}

¶201

' :z2lz:

¶202

,,o

¶203

expeditious relief to the aggrieved senior citizen but also send a clear message that harassment of aged parents at the twilight years will not be tolerated.

¶204

Conclusion

¶205

For ttre foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that sub-rule (3) of Rule 2l of the Telangana^Maintenance and Welfarr: of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2OIL is constitutionzrlly valid and intra uires the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7. The conferment of power upon the District Collector/District Magistrate to order eviction, in appropriate <:ases, is a permissible statutory measure under a welfare enactment irrtended to secure the life and property of senior citizens and does not offend any constitutional principle.

¶206

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim order granted by tLLis Court on 05.01.2026 stands vacated. The proceedings pending before respondent No.2 in File No.Cll394l2023 shall stand revived and shall continue from the stage at which they were prior to the order of stay in present writ petition. Respondent No.2 is directed to conclude [he said proceedings and pass final orders, strictly in accordance u,ith law and on the basis of the material available on record, as e>:peditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) mon:hs from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶207

2Z:i

¶208

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶209

closed. No order as to costs.

¶210

SD/.K.BHAVANI^SWAMY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR

¶211

¶212

//TRUE COPY//

¶213