APHC010126682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. BETWEEN: 1. TATINENI GOPALA KRISHNA, YEARS R/o. D.NO.5 MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 521002. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. - 5. SHRI TATINENI DHARANI, D/ YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/ SUBHASH NAGAR, KUTHBULLAPUR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6831/2026 GOPALA KRISHNA, S/o. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 . D.NO.5-56, ATKURU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238. THE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. THE CHAIRMAN, SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL AND SUB MAGISTRATE, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. - 521301. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA 521101. SHRI TATINENI DHARANI, D/o. LATE SUMAN BABU, AGED 30 EMPLOYEE, R/o. H.No.7-674 PLOT N SUBHASH NAGAR, KUTHBULLAPUR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500015. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO BBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 56, ATKURU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. - THE CHAIRMAN, SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL AND SUB- MAGISTRATE, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA . LATE SUMAN BABU, AGED 30 PLOT No. 130, SUBHASH NAGAR, KUTHBULLAPUR, RANGAREDDY 2 6. CHERUKU RAVI SANKAR, S/o. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/o. D.No.126/127, FLAT No.501, AVANTHIKAS SABARMATHI, MATHRUSRI NAGAR BESIDE ZENA, MIYAPUR, MIYAPUR DISTRICT, K.V. RANGA REDDY, TELANGANA-500049. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.AT (Krishna)51/2025 dated 17.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE 2. KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA 3. S THULASI RAM The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: ….pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.AT(Krishna)51/5025 dated 17.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…….. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent issued vide proceedings Rc.No.AT(Krishna)51/5025 dated 17.02.2026. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell, the petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short hereinafter called as Senior Citizens Act 2007) before the 3rd respondent for cancellation of the Gift Deed executed by the petitioner herein in favour of the 5th respondent. However, the 3rd respondent has cancelled the Gift Deed executed by the petitioner herein, vide order dated 02.07.2025. 4. Assailing the orders of the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent herein filed appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 4 5. The 2nd respondent District Collector while exercising the jurisdiction as appellate authority has set aside the order dated 02.07.2025 of the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 reversing the finding of the Tribunal inter alia directed the 5th respondent to pay monthly maintenance Rs.15,000/- per month to the writ petitioner granting permission to the writ petitioner (senior citizen) to live in the western side of the subject property of the OP containing one bed room, one kitchen and one wash room during his lifetime, vide order dated 17.02.2026. 6. The order of the 2nd respondent-District Collector delivered on 17.02.2026 is under challenge before this Court. Several factual and legal grounds have been raised in the writ petition. One of the grounds is that maintainability of appeal filed by the children of the senior citizen under Section 16 (1) of the Senior Citizens Act 2007. 7. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad learned designated senior counsel assisted by Sri K. Sai Sriharsha for the 5th respondent and Sri S. Tulasiram learned counsel for the 6th respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for other respondents. 8. In this regard, it is imperative to extract the said provision. Section 16(1) of the Act reads as follows: Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a any senior citizen or a parent, as 5 the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel of the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Lokesh S/o. Late P Krishna v. Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Ayyappa S/o. late P. Krishna, Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division reported in Lawsuit 2024 KHC 53004. 10. The Division Bench, while interpreting Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, held that the right of appeal is conferred exclusively upon senior citizens or parents, thereby excluding all other individuals, including children or transferees. 11. The above said ruling followed extensive legal reasoning based on the principle that the appeal being a statutory right and no party having a right to file appeal except in accordance with the prescribed procedure" is now well settled. The right of appeal may be lost to a party in face of relevant provisions of law in appropriate cases. It being a creation of a statute, legislature has to decide whether the right to appeal should be unconditional or conditional. Such law does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. An appeal to be maintainable must have its genesis in the 6 authority of law, relying the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others reported in, (2010) 10 SCC 744). 12. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & another1, in paragraph 15 held as under:- "15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions...." 13. Learned designated Senior Counsel Sri K.V. Bhanuprasad would fairly stated that the appeal is not maintainable agreeing with the D.B. judgment of the Karnataka High Court and it is requested to grant leave to challenge the order of 3rd respondent dated 02l.07.2025, before appropriate forum, by setting aside the impugned order. 14. There is absolutely no quarrel over the proposition to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench Judgment of the Karnataka High court is squarely applicable to the 1 (2009) 8 SCC 310 7 present facts of the case. Therefore, the present impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.AT(Krishna)/51/2025 dated 17.02.2026 is liable to be set aside accordingly it is hereby set aside and the unofficial respondents may challenge the order of 3rd respondent- Tribunal appropriately in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stands closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 14.07.2026 Harin 8 51 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 6831 of 2026 Date: 14-07-2026 Harin