1 2025:CGHC:40724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4309 of 2025 1 - Ashutosh Pathak S/o Muni Prasad Pathak Aged About 39 Years R/o Geeta Bhawan, Nehru Nagar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretory, Department Of Revenue, Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Tribunal Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) President Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Tribunal, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Muni Prasad Pathak S/o Late Shri Baijnath Pathak Aged About 75 Years R/o Geeta Bhawan Ganesh Chowk, Kududand, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sagar Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following relief(s): 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens tribunal, Bilaspur C.G. in case no. 202412072400128 Muni Prasad Pathak v/s Ashutosh Pathak, in the interest of justice, and grant an opportunity for the evidence. 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 in case no. 202412072400128 Muni Prasad Pathak Vs. Ashutosh Pathak in which the order has been passed by the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens tribunal, Bilaspur C.G. An application filed by the respondent/applicant for the maintenance and allowing to reside in the suit house before the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens tribunal, Bilaspur C.G. in which the tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant for granting an opportunity to present evidence and fixed the matter for the final argument. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. She presented a copy of judgment dated 18.08.2022 passed by this Court in WA No. 188 of 2022, wherein para 34, this Court has held that: “34. Since because of the wordings as appearing in 3 Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the writ petition was filed, and since we have held that Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides right to appeal to any of the affected parties, we are not inclined to examine the case on merits and we leave the appellant at liberty to pursue remedy of appeal under Section 16(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if so advised. We, however, provide that in the event of appellant herein preferring an appeal within a period of 45 days from today, the learned Appellate Tribunal will dispose off the appeal on merits treating the same to have been filed within the period of limitation.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear that petitioner has a right to file appeal under Section 16(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. therefore, in light of the judgment dated 18.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 188 of 2022, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal under Section 16(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima