1 CGHC010262212026 2026:CGHC:29881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3667 of 2026 Dr. Goverdhan Singh Thakur S/o Late Ramman Singh Thakur Aged About 62 Years Residence Of Goraj Children Hospital Beachpara, Ward No. 18 Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector/ District Magistrate, Kawadha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer Kawadha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Rashmi Singh Thakur D/o Dr. Goverdhan Singh Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o Goraj Children Hospital Beachpara, Ward No. 18 Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate For State-Respondents : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.15 18:26:41 +0530 2 No.2/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, to expeditiously decide the complaint preferred by the petitioner on 10.12.2025, which is stated to be pending consideration till date. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, Particularly Respondent No.02 to decide the complaint case within stipulated period which is pending since 10.12.2025. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.3 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and a reputed paediatrician by profession, who is operating Goraj Children Hospital at Kawardha and is residing in the hospital premises. It is submitted that on account of continuous disputes and alleged harassment at the hands of respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kawardha, on 10.12.2025 seeking appropriate relief. It is further submitted that although the concerned authority has taken cognizance of the complaint, drawn the order-sheet and issued notice to respondent No.3, no final order has been passed till date. It is, therefore, prayed that an appropriate direction be issued to respondent No.2/Sub- 3 Divisional Magistrate, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, to decide the petitioner's complaint within a time-bound period. 3. Learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent/State, submits that if the complaint preferred by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the limited nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, the fact that the petitioner's complaint dated 10.12.2025 is stated to be pending before respondent No.2, and further considering that the petitioner is a senior citizen, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that under Section 5(4) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, an application filed under the Act is required to be disposed of, as far as possible, within ninety days from the date of service of notice of the application, with an extension of not more than thirty days being permissible only in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. Therefore, proceedings under the Act are intended to be decided expeditiously. 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 4 Kawardha, District Kabirdham, to consider and decide the petitioner's pending complaint, if it has not already been decided, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh