The High Court · 2025

I?:Jl* 3,t',,,-'.i'?:3fi!,? . Reptd . bv corrector and a;d s;;;; c;i;;il h::: i'r'dfuffi:Iff,;,,,:?,"48:.1"d Il]? j*i:'f 8"il;",:f :"y,ti[?o[,'",o8?"',!ffi .ffi Hh3 jli",lia"?j,0""?TJ* The Revenue Divisional Officer and _Sub_Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad on"" or-i65''.',iil'Slti-o,i.;on,i n,,',sisi;Ji"l ill,""ir"J', ?3?i,1ift1,?iTr.j; Smt.U.Lalitha prasad. W/o -Late Sri U.prasada Rao, Age 75 vears. occupation. pensioner. nlo stn ,oor'poiifr"i,iii rr" 1-2_365/36/5 ahd 9. ssH3lul'ff i,,,Y:"':oiJ-?t oppoiG i;ii;;' i!';il"' Gasan Mahar Road, The Sub Registrar, Chikadpally, Hyderabad_T.S. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired the"rewith, the High court may be ...RESPONDENTS pleased to pass an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3110112022 passed by the respondent No.3 in file No.D/640012021 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus the Act and beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Act and consequentially to also set aside the rejection order dated 0610612022 passed by the respondent No.1 in the appeal and further to direct the respondent No.5 to delete and remove the entry of cancellation noted against the two registered instruments being the two gift deeds daled 23t0612021 vide registered document No-2450 of 2021 and 3258 of 2021 of the office of S,R.O. Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI BESTA SATHISH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.VENU GOPAL, Sr. COUNSEL' REP' FOR SRI K.ANOOP KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER =-i:-*!,-E 5i ; -i HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3O597 and 3O669 of2022 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both these u,rit petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.3O.597 of 2022, under Article 226 o[ thle Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to pass an appropiate uit or direction more particulqrlg one in the noture of wit of certiorai quashing the impugned order dated 31-01- 2022 passed bg the respottdent No.3 tn fle No.D/64O0/2021 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vints and begond the scope oJ tts juisdiction and consequentiallq to set aside the same and also to set aside the rejectton order dated 06-06-2O22 passed bg the respond.ent No-1 qnd bg ordeing the respondent No.S to restore back the entry for the two gift deeds dated 23-062021 uide registered document No.2450 of 2021 and 3258 of 2O21 of S.R.O. Chikkadpally...."

3. Writ Petition No.30669 of 2022, under Article 226 o[ the Constitution of India, is filed seeking following relief nature of ulit of certiorari qtashing the impugned order doted 31-O1- 2022 passed by the respondent No.3 tn file No. D/ 64OO/ 2021 as illegol, arbttrary, ultrq uints tlle Act and beyond the scope and juisdictton of the Act and consequentiallg to also set o.side tLe rejection order dated O6 06 2022 passed by tLLe respondent No.1 in the appeal and further to direct the respondent No.s to delete qnd remoue the entry of cancetlation noted against the tuo registered. Insttuments being the two gtfT deeds dated 23-06-2021 uid"e registered document Nos.2450 of 2021 and !1258 of 2021 oJ the office o/S.R.O. Chikkodpally Hgderabad..."

4. The petitioner-Ms.Shriya Uppati in W.P.No.30597 of 2022 is daughter and the petitioner No.2-Saneet Uppati in W.P.No.30669 of I 2 2022 is the son of petitioner No. 1_Smt.Sabita Uppati in W.P.No.30669 of 2022. The respondent No.4-Smt.U.Lalitha prasad, in both the writ petitions is the mother-in_law of petitioner No.1-Smt. Sabita Uppati in W.p.No.30699 of 2022 and grandmother of petitioner in W.p.No.30597 of 2022 and petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.30669 of 2022.

5. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petitions are stated as under: Ms. Shriya Uppati, is the paternal granddaughter iof the Prasad and respondent No.4-Smt.U.Lalitha daughter of Late Sri Sa,jay Uppati, who is the second son of the respondent No.4, died on 12.11.2O20. It is stated that her brother i.e, Saneet Uppati is under the guardianship of Smt. Sabita Uppati. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 after the death of Late Sanjay Uppati has executed registered gift deed vide document NI.24SO/2O21 dated 23.06.2021 inter alio transferring aI that 75% undivided share of Smt. U. Lalitha prasad, to Ms. Shriya Uppati in first floor area admeasuring 1346.25 sq.feet out of 1495 sq.ft and second floor admeasuring t346.25 sq.ft out of rzgs sq.ft and 75yo undivided share from the land admeasuring 279.51 sq.yards out of 447 .22 sq.yards in Premises No. 1-2-365/36/4 situated at Domalguda, Gagan Mahal Road, Hyderabad. It is furrher stated that Smt. Lalitha I t 3 Prasad has executed another registered gift deed vide document No.3258l2O2l dated 23.06.2021 in favour of Ms. Shriya Uppati and also in favour of Master Saneet Uppati being represented by Sabita Uppati inter a/ia transferring all that 7 5o/o of undivided share of the donor to the donees on the constructed stilt floor area admeasuring

1786.05 square feet from out of 2381.4O square feet, first floor area admeasuring 1786.05 square feet from out of 2381.40 square feet, 2"d floor area admeasuring 1786.05 square feet from out of 23g1.40 square feet, 3.d floor area admeasuring 1786.05 square feet from out of 2387.40 square feet and fourth floor area admeasuring 1786.05 square feet from out of 2387.4O square feet and T 5o/o undivided share of land, i.e-, 270.82 square yards out of 433.33 squarc yards in premises No. 1-2-365/ 36/ 5 & 9 situated at Domalguda, Gagan Mahal Road, Hyderabad-.

6. While the matter stood thus, it is stated that differences arose between Smt.Sabita Uppati, Smt.U.Lalitha prasad (R.4) and her remaining sons. The respondent No.4 has filed a complaint against Smt. Sabita Uppati alleging that by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence, she got executed registered gift deecls in favour of her minor sons. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.394 /20'21 dated l2.IO.2O2l was registered on the file of Chikkadpally Police Station, for the offences under Secr ions 420, 4 406, 7O9 r/w Section 24 of ttle Maintenalce and Welfare of parents and Senior CitLens Act, 2OO7 (for short "Senior Citizens Act") and the same is pending for investigation. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 has initially executed gift deed vide document No.2112 /2016 dated O3.06. 2016 in favour of her elder Son_U. Chakravarthy and subsequently the said gift deed was cancelled vide cancellation deed bearing document No. 113/2Of9 dated 27.O7.2019. Questioning the said cancellation, it is stated that said U. Chakravarthy has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.357/2019 on the file of iX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courr, Hyderabad, a.ira the same was decreed in terms of compromise and thereafter, the subject two registered gift deeds dated 23.06.2021, were executed by respondent No.4 in favour of her grandchildren i.e, Ms.Shriya Uppati and Master Saneet Uppati, (who were students) out of love and affection. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 at the instance and with undue influence of her other sons, started interfering with the gifted properties, which necessitated Smt. Sabitha Uppati, mother of petitioners to institute a suit vide O.S.No.507g/ 2021 on the f,rle of XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking bare injunction. It is stated that the respondent No.4 also instituted suit vide o.s.No.47T /2021 on the file of II Addirional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and her brother represented by Smt. Sabitha Uppati for cancellation of the ,//" 5 gift deeds dated 23.06.202I. While-so, on 18.O4.2022, the respondent No.4 has withdrawn the suit vide O.S.No.477 /2021 on the premise that the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer- cum-Special Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 has passed an order dated 31 .O 1 .2 O22 in Flle No.Dl6aOOl2001 cancelling the gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that having come to know that the respondent No.4 by piaying fraud and suppressing the pendency of civil suit instituted for very same relief, has obtained orders dated 31.O1.2022 from the respondent No.3-Special Tlibunal, they made an application vide File No.G/RTII45O6/2O22 dated

19.07.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting to furnish information relating to copy of the orders passed in File No.D /6400l2OO1 dated 31.O1.2022 and the same was furnished by the respondent No.3-Special Tribunai. It is further stated that as the said order was passed without following the procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, even though the petitioners were majors on the date of institution of the suit by the respondent No.4 and without impleading the petitioners as party respondents and only making mother of petitioners as party respondents. Ms. Shriya Uppati, fi1ed an appeal on the file of respondent No.1-Appellate Tribunal-cum-Collector and District Magistrate and the same v/as dismissed vide order dated 06.06.2022 6 on the ground that appeal was not filed within a period of 60 days and the appellant is not senior citizen or parent and not satisfied the requirement under Section 16(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.No.3O597 of 2022 is filed. The said Wrir Petition was listed for admission on 27 .Ol .2022. Thereafter the matter was referred for Mediation and Conciliation on 22.1I.2023. When efforts proved to be in vain, this Court granted status quo orders on 04 .O8.2023.

7. While-so, Smt. Sabita Uppati, representing her son Master Saneet Uppati has Iiled W.P.No.30669 of 2022 challenging rhe very same impugned order dated 3i.O1.2022 and the consequential order dated 06.O6.2O22 and for other appropriate reliefs.

8. The respondent No.4 filed separate counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. The respondent No.4 has not disputed the relationship and execution of gift deeds in favour of petitioners. It is the case of respondent No.4 that she is aged about 82 years and her daughter-in-law i.e, Smt.Sabita Uppati, is harassing her in her old age and she snatched away the cash, gold, jewellery, Fixed Deposit Receipts, cheque books and property documents and as such, she was constrained to file a complaint vide Crime No.95l8l2022 [or the offences under Sections 42O,406, 1O9 IPC r/w Section 24 of Senior Citizens Act. It is stated that inspite of the sarfi'e,'when Smt. Sabita 7 Uppati, continued her attitude, the respondent No.4 lodged another complaint and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.2I4 l2O'22 for the offences under Sections 506 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.6242/2022.It is further stated that seeking cancellation of gift deeds, respondent No.4 has instituted a suit vide O.5.No.477 /2021 on the hle of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is stated that during pendency of said suit, respondent No.4 also instituted a case vide No.D/6aOOl202 I on the file of respondent No.3-Special Tribunal under Section 23tdf the Act and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.O1.2022 and thereafter, the respondent No.4 has withdrawn the suit. It. is further stated in the counter afhdavit that in pursuance of the cancellation of gift deeds, the respondent No.4 decided to settle all her properties and executed a partition deed dated O3.O3.2O22 vide document No.l279 /2022. Questioning the same, the petitioners instituted a suit vide O.S.No.2O1l2O22 on the hle of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad lor cancellation of partition deed and for other reliefs and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further stated that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the respondent No.3 and the same being confirmed by the respondenl No. 1-appellate authority and ultimately, prayed lor dismissal of the writ petitions. 8

9. Heard the submissions Counsel representing Sri B petrtioners, of Sri L. prabhakar, learned Senior Sathish, learned counsel for the Sri P'Venu Gopal, rearned Senior counsel representing Sri K. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the learned Assistant Government pleader for respondent Nos. I to 3 and 5 and perused the record. respondent No.4, Revenue for the 1(). These two writ petitions are filed questioning the proceedings dated 3l .O1.2022 issued by the respondenr No.3 in File No.D /6400 /2O2 I entertaining an application under Se ction 2.3 of rhe Senior Citizens Act for cancellation of registered gift deeds dated 23.06.2021 executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of petitioners vide documen t Nos.24SO /2021 and. 325g /2021 and consequential confirmation order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1_ appellate authority. The relevant recitals of said gift deeds are extracted as under: "1. The Donor is the absolute owner crnd possessor of the Schedute 'r* ."n ort PropetTa and as such the Donor i" p:o!.ny bs ";;i.;";""";;;^oiL ',n" of glfi and the Donor n iOi i"ri)" properta in Jauour of the Donees, rO aavA-ii,ti ii'ititL ,r, ABSOLWELY FOREVER Srn.dr," -wag "o*u

2. The Donor heretn is the patemal grandmother of the Donees. 3. The Donor ofi of bue aii affection, tou.,qrds the Donees had dectded and agreed to gti the scheduk Gt"tt DZed in h;k;;";."'*""'e propertg' to the Donees ba exeatting this 4. Th.e Donor herebg conueus and..transfers all her rights along uith all the ounership rights and lrtl" to b"-eijogea bg iJ", atsotut"tg and foreuer and to hold and enjog tne soke ;"";;r*t;';;in absotute owner thereof throush this Gtfi beed. iii *iin"rtliLJir' .f tan_sfer, -tne"' \ /\ 9 uiz., alienation, mortgoge, sale, hApothecatton Ior the purpose of raising loans etc. 7- The Schedule Propertg is free from oJl encumbrances, chorges, prtor qifis, etc.

10. And this Gtjl Deed slnll not be irreuocable at anA circuftLstances

11. A careful reading of the above recitals would reveal that the donor i.e, respondent No.4 out of love and affection towards her grandchildren i.e, petitioners has executed the gift deeds in their favour of the petitioners, who were students at the time of execution. There is no condition in the gift deeds that the transferee/donee shall provide basic needs to the transferor/ donor and fgilure to provide such necessities by the transferee/ donee the transfer of property made in favour of the donee shall be deemed to be declared to be fraud or coercion and iiable for cancellation. Even reading of the counter afhdavits, would reveal that the respondent No.4 is having diflerences with mother of petitioners and no role whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioners i.e, granddaughter and grandson. The Senior Citizens Act was enacted with a laudable object for providing maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents taking into consideration the modern trends in the joint family system and a large number of elderly people are not being looked after by their family members in providing financial assistance and attending medical emergencies. This legislation empowers the senior l0 Citizens to cancel the gift deeds executed by them in favour of their children/near relatives and declare such transactions as void.

12. It is apt to refer Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which reads as follows: "23. Transfer of propertA to be uoid tn certain circumstances- (1) Where any senior citizen utho, afr.el the commencement oJ this Act, ha.s transJet'red bA wag of gift or otlenlrise, his propertg, subject to th,e conditton thol the transferee shatl prouide tle basic amenities and basic phgsical needs to the transferor qnd such transferee refuses or fails to prouide such amenities and phgsical needs, the said transfer of propefiy shttll be deemed to lwue been mode bg fraud or coercion or und.er undue inJluence and shall at the optton of th.e transferor be d.eclared uoid bg th.e Tibunal. (2) Where ang senior citizen has a ight to receiue maintenance out of ti estate and such estate or part tlEreof is tra nsferred, tE ight to receiue maintenance mag be enforced against th,e transferee if the tronsferee has notice of the ighL or if tte transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transkree Jor consideration ond u.ithout notice of ight. (3) If, ang senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the ights under sub- sections (1) and (2), action mag be taken on his betnlf bA anA of the organisation refened to in Explanotion to sub-section (1) of section S.

13. A careful perusal of above provision makes it clear that for invoking Section 23, the following pre-requisites have to be fulfilled i.e, 1) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; arrd 2) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be de.med'to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the i 11 instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void. 14, A reading of the recitals in the gift deeds dated 23.06-2021 would clinchingly establish that no conditions whatsoever attached to the Transfer of Property have been mentioned. The issues raised in this writ petition are no longer res integro in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara as. Ramti Deul and anotherr, wherein it was observed as under:

13. When a senior citizen parts uith his or Ler propertg bg exectting q-' gtjl. or a release or othentise in fauour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looktng after the sentor citizen is not necessailg attached to it. On the contrary, uery ofien, such transJers qre made out of loue and affection toithaut ang expectation in retum. Therefore, uhen it is alleged thrlt Le conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attaclled to a tran sfer, existence of such condttions must be establislted before the Tibunal.

15. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 who said to have differences with her .daughter-in-1aw i.e, Sabita Uppati, (mother of petitioners) has filed criminal cases and also instituted suit vide O.5.No.477 /2021 on the hle of II Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad, for cancellation of gift deeds dated 23.06.2027. Pending adjudication of the said suit, the respondent No.4 also hled a case vide Case No.B I 6400 I 202 1 under Section 23 of the Act, making Smt. Sabita Uppati as party respondent. There is no whisper in the cases filed by the respondent No.4 that the petitioners are ' (2022) t7 scR 876 t2 under obligation to maintain and they failed to discharge their responsibility and transfer of the property in their favour amounts to fraud. Contrastingly, both the petitioners are students ald it can be safely presumed that there is no income in the hands of the petitioners for paying maintenance to the respondent No.4 and she has voluntarily, without any undue influence has parted the property in favour of the petitioners with love and affection.

16. In addition to the above, nowhere it is stated in the counter aflrdavits that pendency of the suit vide O.S.No.47Z l2O2l on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hled by the respondent No.4), was brought to the notice of the authority constituted under the Act to decide the validity or otherwise of the registered gift deeds d,ated 23.06.2021, which is subject matter of adjudication in suit. On the contrary, it is stated that the said suit was withdrawn subsequent to obtaining order dated 31 .O7.2C.22 frorn the respondent No.3 cancelling the registered gift deeds. Nowhere in the order of the Tribunal, it was mentioned that the notices were issued to the petitioners who are admittedly majors as on the date of institution of the case before the Tribunal. In the impugned orders, there is no mention about the suits instituted by the respondent No.4 or by the petitioners. The way in which the respondent No.4 being Senior Citizen prosecuted her cases before parallel forums \ \ t3 suppressing the pendency of the case disentitle her from claiming benefits under the Senior Citizens Act. It is settled lau, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jagaram and others us, Bangalore Deuelopment Authoritg and. othersz, held that it is imperative that party approaching the court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. It was further observed that a litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to litigation and if he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with Court as well as with oppbsite parties whrch cannot be countenanced. In the instant case, no reasons whatsoever are forthcoming from the respondent No.4 lor institution of the case on the hle of the respondent No.3-special Tribunal, when admittedly a comprehensive civil suit is already hled and pending, wherein the petitioners were made as party defendants, who acquired vested rights in terms of the registered gift deeds.

17. The Respondent No.3, being a quasi-judicial authority, ought to have followed the proceclure and issued notices to the affected/ interested persons before entertaining the petition filed by respondent No. 4. However, the record indicates that no such notices were issued to the petitioners, who were majors and in whose favor ' lzozzy tz scc s rs t4 registered gift deeds had been executed, and against whom no allegations were made. Further, Smt.Sabita Uppati has filed an additional affidavit dated 05.02.2O25 before this Court, stating that respondent No.4 is receiving pension as a retired Central Government employee and is also receiving pension of her late husband, amounting to approximately Rs.8O,OO O / - in total. The affidavit further states that she, along with her children, are willing to provide any necessary assistance to respondent No.4 to ensure that she leads a comfortable life with them. The facts of the case present a distressing situation, involving a dispute am6ng close reiatives i.e, graldmother and her grandchildren. The Court must balance the paramount interest of the benehcial legislation on one hand and the future career prospects of the petitioners, who are students and the children of respondent No.4's deceased second son, on the other. Upon examining these aspects, this Court comes to a conclusion that respondent No.4 is receiving both her pension and her late husband's pension, which would sufficiently meet her basic necessities. To meet the ends of justice, the petitioners are directed to extend love and affection to the respondent No.4 who is admittedly aged about 82 years with a hope that the litigation between the parties would be resolved amicably. l5 18, For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that cancellation of gift deeds dated 23.06.2021 by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 31.01.2022 and con.[rrmation of the same by the respondent No.1-appellate authority is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are liable to be set aside.

19. Accordingiy, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 3l .Ol .2022 passed in File No. D/ 6400 /2021 by the respondent No.3, u,hich was confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 06.06.2022 are set aside. Consequentty, the respondent No.5-Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, is directed to delete the entries of cancellation made against the registered gift deeds dated 23.06.2021 bearing document Nos.2450 and 3258 of 2021. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ, petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SOI.X. SREE RAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR AI-:- ',rl becrtoru oFFlcER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE C'V' BHASKAR REDDY (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) To, 1 2 3 The Collector and District Magistrate' Hy-derabad District (constituted under Citizens Act 2007) Nampally maintenance And welfare "ii;;;;t.;"J'senior Station Road, HYderabad-T.S. TheAssistantDirector'WelfareofDisabled.seniorCitizens,officeofJr/-4' tuHil;;;Jr. C"rprex, neaiiir,iuitron Grouno, M G Road' Hvderabad-T S' The Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional .Magistrate' LVde-r3bgd oiri..i. ffrotoU"o Oi"trili' otfice of RDO cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate' Nampaliy, Station Road, HYderabad '

4. The Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpalty, Hyderabad_T.S. 5. 1'l LR Copies t Buildings, Hyd6rabad. " I[:.::fl,ilT:retary' union or lndia, Ministry or Law, Justice and company 7. The Secretarv. Telanqana Advocates Association, Library, High Court 8. One CC to SRt BESTA SATHtSH, Advocare tOpUCl 9. One CC to SRt K.ANOOP KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl 10.Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at \ Hyderabad [OUT] ',a "l 1. Two CD Copies BSR BS b ,_. :r'r:. =. ! -,?!!t!! Ft !E, =:?'A'q+ -;.E:Fr' E.=-,-__ - __. ':;-:. l) HIGH COURT DATED: 0410312025 I I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.30597 and 30669 of 2022 lntE STr{/ (' o r) 0 6 I'iAh Z0l5 r)€'s PATat.lr: t) ( C {+ ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS 1l