APHC010595902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 988/2026 Between: 1. R MALLESWARA RAO, S/ONAGGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.10-93-12, UDA COLONY, CHENCHUPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. R.UMADEVI,, W/O R.MALLESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.10-93-12, UDA COLONY, CHENCHUPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN,CHILDREN DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS, SECRETARIAT,VELA GAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DIVISIONAL TRIBUNAL RDO, PRESIDING OFFICER CUM DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE UNDER MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007, KOTHAPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. AMMISETTY VENKATA NAGA KUMARI, W/O VENKATESWARA RAO. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF 1-54 GROUND FLOOR(GF)-1, SRI SRINIVASA RESIDENCY AMBAPURAM, GOLKONDA STREET, PIPUL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 2 ...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 topleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not taking action on the Representations dated 21.01.2025, 23-06.2025- and 21.07.2025 of the Petitioners under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against the 3rd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India consequently direct the 2nd respondent to provide protection to the Petitioners under the Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 preventing the 3rd Respondent from interfering the possession of the residential building bearing House No. 10-93-12 , Amaravathi Plots , Chenchupeta,Tenali, Guntur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE 2. RAVI KUMAR C The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.988 OF 2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not taking action on the Representations dated 21.01.2025, 23.06.2025 and 21.07.2025 of the Petitioners under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against the 3rd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India consequently direct the 2nd respondent to provide protection to the Petitioners under the Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 preventing the 3rd Respondent from interfering the possession of the residential building bearing House No.10-93-12,Amaravathi Plots, Chenchupeta, Tenali, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner No.1 herein is that he is a senior citizen and petitioner No.2 is his wife. Being senior citizen, petitioner No.1 submitted representations dated 21.01.2025, 23.06.2025 and 21.07.2025 to the respondent No.2 herein/ Tribunal seeking for granting maintenance under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘the Act 56 of 2007’). But till date, respondent No.2 neither considered the claim of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act 56 of 4 2007 nor issued any notice or reply to the petitioner. He further submits that once any representation was submitted by a senior citizens and if it is received by the respondent authority/ tribunal, the same should be disposed of within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application/ representation as per the scheme of the Act 56 of 2007. But in the case on hand, nearly 9 months were already lapsed and representation was not considered by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner shall submit his application/ representation ventilating his grievance as prescribed under section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007. He further submits that in the present case petitioners submitted representation and PGRS complaint but not any application under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007. He further submits that if at all the petitioner No.1 submits his application/ representation under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 afresh, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007 contemplates that if at all an application was submitted by a senior citizen ventilating his grievance, the said application shall be disposed of within a period of ninety 5 days from the date of receipt of application. For more understanding, Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007 is extracted hereunder: “5. Application for maintenance An application filed under sub-section (2) for the monthly allowance for the maintenance andexpenses for proceeding shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of the service ofnotice of the application to such person: Provided that the Tribunal may extend the said period, once for a maximum period of thirty days in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.” 6. On perusal of the Section 5(4) of the Act, every senior citizen is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal before the respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance for his welfare and well being against the kith and kin and blood relation of the senior citizen by submitting an application as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007. In the case on hand, the petitioners said to have been submitted representation in three occasions, but the same were not filed herewith and no proof is also filed that the said applications were either received or acknowledged by the respondent No.2 herein. In the absence of any such acknowledgment or proof of receipt of representations by the respondent No.2, this Court would not venture for any direction and to pass any order believing the statement of the petitioner in the absence of admission by the learned Government Pleader. On the other hand, as contended by the learned Government Pleader any application for adjudication under the provisions of the Act should be in accordance Section 5 6 of the Act 56 of 2007. On perusal of the Section 5 of the Act as extracted above, the statement of the learned Government Pleader is valid and reasonable submission. Therefore, the petitioner shall submit his application in accordance with Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 by providing all particulars as required. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit an application afresh to the respondent No.2 as prescribed under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 ventilating their grievance within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such submission, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in compliance to Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the application, after conducing enquiry and after observing principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:17.04.2026 BSP 7 03 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.988 OF 2026 Date:17.04.2026 BSP