APHC010034282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2935/2026 Between: 1. PAIDI KRISHNAVENI,, W/O LATE SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 66YRS, OCC NIL, RIO D.NO.3-47, KILLI VEEDHI, PURUSHOTTAPURAM VILLAGE, SARUBUJJILI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AT SRIKAKULAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM AND CHAIRPERSON, DIVISIONAL LEVEL TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, O/O SUB REGISTRAR, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, PATHAPATNAM,SRIKAKULAMDISTRICT. 7. PYDI VENKATA LAKSHMI SUVVARI VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE 2 PYDIVENKATAPPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 27YRS, OCC OFFICE SUBORDINATE, R/O D.NO.1-41, BARAMPURAM VAN I VEEDHI, PONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to (a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action and inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in failing to enforce the statutory provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in failing to act upon the violation of the mandatory conditions of compassionate appointment, and in failing to protect and secure maintenance to the petitioner-senior citizen, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India (b) Consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith take appropriate action against the 5th respondent for breach of the mandatory Condition No.5 contained in Proceedings No.E1/645/2019 dated 05.03.2025 and the notarised undertaking dated 07.12.2024, including initiation of proceedings for suspension/cancellation of her compassionate appointment, strictly in accordance with law (c) Issue a further direction to the 6th respondent to deduct a reasonable portion of the monthly salary payable to the 5th respondent and credit the same every month to the petitioner s bank account towards her maintenance, pending and subject to final determination by the competent authority under the Maintenanceand Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 And pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 6, particularly the 6th to forthwith deduct and credit an interim monthly maintenance amount from the salary payable to the 7''" respondent and deposit the same into the bank account of the petitioner, towards her sustenance, medical expenses and day-to-day needs, pending disposal of the writ petition; and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SANYASAPPA RAO HANUMANTU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.2935 OF 2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to a issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action and inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in failing to enforce the statutory provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in failing to act upon the violation of the mandatory conditions of compassionate appointment, and in failing to protect and secure maintenance to the petitioner-senior citizen, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; b) Consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith take appropriate action against the 5th respondent for breach of the mandatory Condition No.5 contained in Proceedings No.E1/645/2019 dated 05.03.2025 and the notarised undertaking dated 07.12.2024 including initiation of proceedings for suspension/cancellation of her compassionate appointment, strictly in accordance with law; c) Issue a further direction to the 6th respondent to deduct a reasonable portion of the monthly salary payable to the 5th respondent and credit the same every month to the petitioner’s bank account towards her maintenance, pending and subject to final determination by the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein submitted an application dated 25.07.2025 to the respondent No.2 seeking to conduct an enquiry regarding the illegal appointment order obtained by her daughter-in-law and for grant of maintenance under the provisions of 5 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘the Act 56 of 2007’). While so, the respondent No.4 closed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5(1) of the Act 56 of 2007 without conducting any enquiry and without adjudicating the matter between the parties concerned. Hence, the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that on perusal of the notices as well as the proceedings issued by respondent No.4, it reveals that pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 5(1) of the Act 56 of 2007, respondent No.4 issued notices to the parties concerned on 04.08.2025. It seems that even after receipt of notices, the parties concerned neither appeared in person nor represented through counsel. He further asserts that on perusal of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by respondent No.4/ Revenue Divisional Officer, it indicates that none appeared before the tribunal even though the tribunal ventured to sought the presence of the petitioner as well as the respondents through Tahsildar on 12.11.2025. But none appeared. Having no other option, respondent No.4 herein closed the application of the petitioner observing that the parties are not interested to prosecute the matter. He further submits that if the petitioner is interested to prosecute his application, let there be a direction to respondent No.4 to reopen the application submitted by the petitioner and to consider the same afresh in accordance with law. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the 6 petitioner herein is the senior citizen and entitled for relief of maintenance and welfare under the provisions of the Act 56 of 2007. It is observed that the petitioner rightly filed an application ventilating his grievance under Section 5(1) of the Act 56 of 2007 seeking for maintenance as entitled against the respondent No.6, who is none other than the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. It is further observed that respondent No.6 who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner was appointed as office subordinate under the compassionate grounds at Sub Registrar Office, Pathapatanma, due to death of the son of the petitioner, who worked as office subordinate in the department of Stamps and Registration. Considering the eligibility and harness situation of the family of respondent No.6, she was appointed under compassionate grounds. If that is so, being a compassionate appointee, in view of the death of the son of the petitioner, respondent No.6 is under statutory obligation to look after the welfare of the petitioner herein. It is further observed that the respondent No.4, inadvertently closed the application of the petitioner without granting some more time for securing appearance/ presence of the parties therein. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion and is inclined to dispose of the writ petition remanding the matter to the respondent No.4. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, remanding the matter to the respondent No.4 for fresh enquiry and adjudication. Further, Respondent No.4 is directed to re-open the application of the petitioner submitted under Section 5(1) of the Act 56 of 2007 afresh and conduct a 7 detailed enquiry after serving notices afresh to the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 and to dispose of the application of the petitioner, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within 60 days after the restoration of the application, as per Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007. Further, the petitioner herein is directed to appear before the respondent No.4 and to cooperate for enquiry as and when necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:03.02.2026 BSP 8 06 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.2935 OF 2026 Date:03.02.2026 BSP