Esham Suresh Kumar Yadav v. 1. The State of Telangana

3. Smt. Esham Anasuya Bai Yadav, Wo- Sri. Late Esham Sathyanarayana Yadav, Rl/o. H. N o.8-3-2341 449, Lakshmi Narsimha Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High C,ourt may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI under Article 226 of Constitution of lldia, there!V calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in case No. A1161112023, daled 3Ol7l2O25 and set aside the. sanre-as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I besides violative of principles of natural justlce. i lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in case No. A1161112023, daled 3O1712025 pending disposal of the above W.P in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINAYAK RAO REP FOR SRI NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT Counsel for the Respondents No.1: SRI L.RAVINDER AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.2: SRI K.MURALIDHARySRI M.YADAGIRI, AGP FOR MTs.K.MANIDEEPIKA, GP FOR WOMEN & CHILDREN WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRrT PETITION No.2493O of 2O25 ORDER: The present writ petition is hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeking certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2na respondent in case No.A/ 1611/2023, dated 3O.O7 .2025 and to set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides violative of principles of natural justice in the interest ofjustice.

2. Heard Sri Vinayak Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Nyapathi Prashant, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar and Sri M.Yadagiri, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing on behalf of Mrs.K.Manideepika, learned Government Pleader for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens Department.

3. The learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 is the mother of the petitioner, who, under the alleged influence of his siblings, filed an application dated 21.09.2023 before the Assistant Director, Welfare for Disabled and Senior Citizens, Nampally, Hyderabad, seeking his eviction from the premises bearing I i Page 2 of5 H.No.14-6- 174lA, Chudi Baz.aar, Hyderabad. Allega(ions were made against the petitioner regarding theft of keys, documents and misbehavior. It is further submitted that respondent No.3, while residing separately wittr other family members, alleged abuse and obstruction by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner fiIing a detailed counter and expressing his willingaress to care for his mother, a series of notices were issued, culminating in a show cause notice dated

21.O4.2025 under G.O.Ms.No.4O of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2OO7. (a) It is further submitted that subsequently, the Assistant Director passed an order dated 30.O7.2025 in Case No.A/16ll/2O23, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 30 days. The said order, receivcd on 16.O8.2025, is impugrred herein. The learned counsel further contends that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and passed *,ithout proper enquiry or consideration of his counter,affidavit., in viol:rtion of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the property was purchased in tl.e name of respondent No.3 from joint familv funds, wherein the petitioner made substantial contributions. The respondent No.3, being a housewife without independent income, had no frnancial mearns to acquire the property. (b) lt is lurther submitted that the proceedings were initiatcd with -fr-.I.,fi.i. intent z**-in collusion with the petitioner's brothers, who Page 3 ofs have already received other properties and that selective action is being taken only against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in continuous, peaceful possession of the said property for several years and has no other efficacious remedy except to approach tJ.is Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. On the ottrer hand, the learned Assistant Gove rnment Pleaders, appearing on behalf of tlle learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Women Development and Child Welfare submit that the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 were conducted in accordance with law, ensuring due process and multiple opportunities to the petitioner to safeguard the welfare and dignity of the senior citizen (Respondent No. 3), who is the undisputed owner of the propert5z. Allegations of malafide and collusion are unsubstantiated. The Assistant Director acted fairly and u,ithin jurisdiction. The petitioner's claims of title and contribution are civil in nature and cannot override tl-re welfare mandate of the Act. No violation of natural justice occurred and that the petitioner's contentions were duly considered. The writ petition involves disputed facts and title claims, which are outside the scope of Article 226. The order is legal, reasoned and does not warrant interference by this Court. Stating thus, they prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. I Page 4 of5

5. Having heard the learned counsCl on both sides and ,rpo.t '' perusal of the materia-l available on record, it is evident that the respondent authority issued multiple notices to the petitioner and afforded ample opportunity to respond. The petitioner has also submitted a counter-affrdavit and various letters, all of which were taken into consideration by the authority concerned. The proceedings were initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2O07, which empowers the desigrrated authority to pass n6cessary orders for the protection and welfare of senior citizens. The impugned order has been passed within tJ e scope and ambit of the said statute.' The petitioner's grievance regarding violation of natural justice is unfounded, as he was heard and his submissions were duly considered. Thc petitioner's contentions relating to ownership, contribution t() joint family funds and alleged malalides involve disputed questions of fact and civil claims, which cannot be adjudicated urnder Article 226 of the Constitution. The object of the Act is to ensurt. th(' protection, dignity and welfare of senior citizens. In this case, thc respondent No.3 (mother) is the registered owner of the properq, and had sought relief on account of abuse and ill-treatment, which the comperenr authority addressed appropriately. The impugned order is r.r'cl[- reasoned, based on material before the authority and does not suffer lrom 4rbitrariness or illegality warranting interference by this \ ,'7 /' Page 5 ofs Court. In view of ttre above findings, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.

6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1, One CC to SRI NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT, Ad 2. Two CCsto GP FOR REVENUE, High Courtforthe Stateof Telangana at PUC] Hyderabad . [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN & CHILDREN WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUTI

4. Two CD Copies PMK TKS Alr I I I I 1 i HIGH COURT DATED:1611012025 ORDER WP.No.24930 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,.\l.o