Allahabad High Court
DAYA SHANKAR TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to grant mandamus and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation, directing the District Magistrate to decide it within a stipulated time.
Summary
Petitioner Daya Shankar Tiwari filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel certain respondents to dispossess other occupants from his house and to restrain entry under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and also to direct the District Magistrate, Deoria to decide a representation filed on 18‑03‑2025. The respondents argued that the petitioner should file a fresh representation, which would then be decided. The High Court held that it would not entertain the mandamus applications and instead directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within six weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order, and instructed the District Magistrate to decide the matter within eight weeks after hearing the other respondents. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits and that the decision rests with the administrative authority. Consequently, the petition was disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide a pending representation under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- Whether the petitioner must file a fresh representation before the administrative authority before any writ relief can be granted.
Legislation cited
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Mandamus
- Administrative law
- Representation
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
- District Magistrate
- Procedural direction
- Petition disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 15778 of 2025
Daya Shankar Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alok Kumar Tiwari, C.S.C.,
Manvendra Narain Pathak
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Alok Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 to 8 and learned
standing counsel for State- respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and directing to
respondents 2 to 4 to ensure dispossess the
respondents 5 to 8 from the house in question and
they may also be restrained to enter in the
movable/immovable property of the petitioner
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and directing the
respondent-authorities concerned to take
appropriate decision over the application of the
petitioner (Annexure No. ... to the writ
petition)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his
grievance, petitioner has filed representation dated 18.3.2025 before
WRIC No. 15778 of 2025
2
respondent No. 2, but no decision has been taken till date. Lastly, it is
submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 (District
Magistrate, Deoria) to decide the representation within a stipulated time.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner may be
directed to file fresh representation. Further, in case any such
representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the
earliest.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move fresh representation along
with certified copy of this order before respondent No.2 within six weeks
from today. In case any such representation is filed, respondent No. 2 is
directed to decide the same in accordance with law maximum within a
period of eight weeks thereafter after providing opportunity of hearing to
respondents 5 to 8.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It
is upon respondent No.2 to pass order after considering the relevant Rules
as well as facts of the case.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
May 7, 2026
LN Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
LALIT TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…