High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ' Direction or Order' particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to ' a' Declaring the impugned inaction of the Respondents No' 2 to 5 in executing the order vide case no.N931r2n24 clated 1 1to4t2025 passed by the court of the AppeIate Tribunar cum r)istrir;t coflector Magistrate, Hyderabad District under section 22(2) of MWF,sc l\ct 2007 and Rule 21(3) against the Respondent no.6 is iregar arbitrary viorative of Articre 19,21 and 300 - A the Constitution of lndia and violativer principles of nat justice b. Pass u ral 14, IANO: 1O F 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be ,reased to direct the respondents no 2 and 5 to execute the order vide case no.Aig31t2024 dared 11-04-2 025 passed by the court of the Apperate Tribunar oum t)istrict corector & Magistrate, Hyderabad District under section 22(2) of MWpSC Acr 2oo7 and the Rule 21(3) against the Respondent no.6 until pending dispc,sal cf the main Writ Petition Counsel for the petitioners: SRI A S BHASKARA GlRl Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to S: Gp FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI RAGHU GURRAM The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETTTTO N No. t5344 o f2025 o RDER Heard learned counsel fbr the petitioners' learned Govemment Pleader for Home appearing on behalf ol respondent Nos'l to 5 and Sri Raghu Gumam, lealned couusel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, and perused the record With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage'

2. The case of the petitioncrs in brief is that in a proceeding initiated under Section 22 (2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ( lor short.the Act,) and the Rules made thereunder, the District Collector passed an order in Case No.AJ9314l2024 dated ll-04-2025' whereby the District Collector had held that the actions of the unofhcial respondent herein are contrary to the wellbeing and dignity of Senior Citizens and accordingly directed thc unofficial respondent herein to vacate the petitioners' propefty within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said order. \ 2 *:. \ aI .:

3. It is the further case of petitioners that the District (lollector on passing the aforesaid order., had sent a copy of the sarne to the Commissioner of police, Hyderabad requesting thern to tak:e necessary action in irnplementing the said order as per Rulc 2l(3) of the Telangana State Maintenance and Welfare of par.:nts and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (for short .the Rutes,).

4. It is the further case of pctitioners that desl;ite the District Collector's order being forwarded to the 2nd respondent and his subordinates i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 by putting the petitioners in possession of the subject house, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have acted contrary to the aforesaid order and also contrafy to Rule 2 l (3) of the Rules

5. Per contra, leamed Govemment pleader. for Horne appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 5 while denying the .Writ averlnents would subrnit that though, the District Collector harl pas,secl order under the provisions of the Act and the Rures on r 1-04-202.t, the said order was the subject matter of a challenge before this Courl by the unofficial respondent No.6 vide w.p.No.r365 1 of 2025. and this I ,, l Court by order dated 30'04-2025 while ordering notice of the said Writ Petition, granted interim suspension of the said order'

6. Leamed Government Pleader for Home further submits that on account of suspension of the order of the District Collector' the respondent authorities could not take further steps for implementing the said order passed in favour of the petitioners'

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No'6 would contend that the 1,t petitioner had approached the D;strict Collector' suppressing the fact of order of injunction dated 08-11-2024 subsisting against her in D.V.C.N o.41112024 on the file of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad and that the 6th respondent had approached this Courl impugning the said order of the District CollectorwithoutavailingtheremedyofRevisionunderSection22(2) of the Act.

8. On behalf of the 6th respondent, it is further contended that this Court by considering that during subsistence of injunction order in DVC No.4ll12024, the District Collector could not have passed the order dated ll-04-2025, had suspended the same and the petitioner despite being served with notice of the above order passed by this \ 4 t Courl in W.P.No.l365l of 2025, by suppressing the said order had filed the present Writ petition and obtained interirlr order in the present Writ Petition on 2g_05_2025. 9 By stating as above, leamed counsel for 6,h respc,ndent submits that the present Writ petition liable to be disnrissetl as thc petltioners approached the Court with unclean hands by resofiing to 1S suppresslon

10. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

11. Though, the petitioners by the present writ petitio, had claimed of the respondent authorities in particular respondenl Nos;.2 to 5 having failed b imprement the order of the District cc,rect.r dared 1l-04-2025 and thus, sought for a direction to the said respondents ro implement the said order, admittedly, the petitioners havt: approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition i.e. W.p.No. 15:44 c,f 20?.5 during Sumrner Vacation, by which date, the order of the District Collector has already been suspended by this Court vide orde,r dated 30-04-2025 in W.P.No.1365l of 2025. Thus, rhe petirioners firstly, could not have filed the Writ petition seeking implemen.,atiorL of the said order. I 5

12. Though, on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the petitioners are not aware of the said order passed by this Court on 30-04-2025 in W'P'No 13651 of 2025' a perusal of the counter- affidavit rrred on behalr of 6,h respondent herein would show that a notice of filing of Writ Petition was taken out and this Court passing order on 3O-04-2O25by notice dated 03-05-2025 and the said notice having been served on petitioner on 06-05-2025' Thus' it is not open for the petitioners to contend of not being aware of this Coutl suspending the order of District Collector dated ll-04-2025' implementation of which was has been sought for in the present Writ I \ Petition.

13. Since, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W'P'No'13651 of 2025 having suspended the order of the District Collector taking note of the fact of subsistence of injunction order dated 08-1 l-2024 passed in DVC No.4i 1/2024, the District Collector could not have passed the order dated l1-04-2[25and the petitioners without taking steps to get the aforesaid order of this Courl dated 30-04-2025 getting vacated including the order of injunction dated 08-l t-2024 in DVC No.4lll2O24, cannot seek for implementation of the order of the District Collector dated 11-04-2025 by filing the present Writ Petition' I t \ l. I I : t: ':t ,' 3 :, 6

14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the plesent Wlit petition as filed by the petitioners is fin;tly b.y resorling to suppression ilnd secondly, is misconceived. l5 Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed.

16. In nonral circumstances, this Court on dismissing such kind of fiivolous Writ petitions resorting to suppression, wou ld imposed exemplary costs, horvever, taking note of the fact that the petitioners are Senior Citizens, this Courl is repilmanding the petitioners fbr filirg this type of cases. 17 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending shall stand closed. No orders as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/.A .PRATHI MA PUTY REGIS TRAR

1. One CC to Sri A. S. Bhaskara Giri, Advocate [Op 2. TwoCCsto G P for Home High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OurI One CC to Sri Raghu Gurra Two cD copies m' Advocate[oPUC] l 4 SEC]lON OFFICER TJ LS ,1,W- I I I I I To HIGH COURT DATED:26 tO6t2OZs I l i I l ORDER WP.No.15344 of 2O2S o q\.t .\i 2 0 sEP 2025 ''i: l ,: DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s{