*THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN +WRIT PETITION No.32591 of 2025 %16-02-2026 Between # R.Srinivas, S/o R.Manohar, 44 years, Business, R/o H.No.4-2-122, Ranisatiji colony, Adilabad Town, Adilabad District. ....Petitioner vs.

State of Telangana and 2 others ….Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar ^Counsel for the respondents : Smt.K.Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader for Women and Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1. (2010)11 SCC 1 2. (2014)10 SCC 1

3. (2023)11 SCC 700

4. AIR 1999 SC 22

5. AIR 1968 SC 579 6. (1995)6 SCC 614 7. (2021)2 SCC 785

8. Civil Appeal (Diary No.42786 of 2025) dt.12.09.2025

9. (2025)2 SCC 787

10. (2021)15 SCC 730 11. (2023)11 SCC 700 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.32591 of 2025 DATE: .02.2026 BETWEEN:

R.Srinivas ….Petitioner AND State of Telangana and 2 others ….Respondent

ORDER

(per Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)

Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.K.Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader for Women and Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and Declaration, and Declare the sub- rule 3 of Rule 21 of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 as Unconstitutional, ultra vires to Parent Statute, i.e., Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 being excessive delegation, and Consequently, set-aside the proceedings bearing C1/394/2023 against the Petitioner herein on the file of Respondent No.2, and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the best interest of justice”.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

3. The petitioner is the third son of respondent No.3, a senior citizen aged about 80 years, who is the absolute owner of residential premises bearing H.No.4-2-122, situated at Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad. The genesis of the dispute traces to the year 2023, when respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Adilabad, alleging that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied portions of the said house, failed to provide maintenance, broke open the lock of a shop belonging to the wife of respondent No.3 and locked the common latrine, thereby causing hardship to the aged parents.

4. The complaint was forwarded to the District Collector, Adilabad, who, upon issuance of notice and conducting an enquiry, passed order, dated 27.02.2024 in R.C.No.C1/394/2023 (Ex.P6) dismissing the request for eviction, taking note of the deposition of the petitioner's mother that the petitioner and his wife were taking proper care of them, while advising the children to treat respondent No.3 with dignity.

5. An appeal preferred by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.S1/555/2024 before the Director/Commissioner came to be dismissed by order dated 13.08.2024 (Ex.P7), affirming the order of the District Collector and observing that property disputes, if any, may be resolved in accordance with law.

6. Subsequently, on 15.08.2024, respondent No.3 lodged FIR in Crime No.333 of 2024 at Adilabad-I Police Station against the petitioner and his wife for the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging physical assault and abuse on 12.08.2024 (Ex.P8). Thereafter, respondent No.3 once again approached the District Collector seeking eviction,