Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Rajeshwari – Appellant
Versus
Meena – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6553 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Rajapandian
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Surendran, AGP for R1 to R3
Judicial review is not maintainable when a statutory appeal is pending under the relevant Act.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the cancellation of a settlement deed under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by seeking a writ of certiorari. The court determined that the petitioner had a statutory remedy through an appeal that was pending and deemed the writ petition not maintainable. The court directed the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal within eight weeks, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging a cancellation order under the senior citizens act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. writ cannot be entertained during the pendency of an appeal. (Para 3) |
| 3. direction for the appellate authority to resolve the matter promptly. (Para 4) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
24.10.2025 passed by the first respondent cancelling the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (in short “Senior Citizens Act”).
2. The petitioner is the daughter of the fourth respondent. Based on a complaint lodged by the fourth respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled by the first respondent under the impugned order dated 24.10.2025. Aggrieved by the same, a statutory appellate remedy is available to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.
3. In fact, the petitioner had already filed the said statutory appeal before the third respondent, which is still pending. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the very same order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the first respondent, which is also the subject matter of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the third respondent. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained, since it is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal as against the very same impugned order dated 24.10.2025 before the third respondent. The only relief that can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the third respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. If such a direction is issued, it will also not prejudice the rights of the fourth respondent.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 26.11.2025 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent, and by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since no adverse orders are passed against the fourth respondent in this writ petition, notice to the fourth respondent in this writ petition is dispensed with. No Costs.
