Telangana HC Upholds Collector’s Powers in Seniors Act

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011; This rule, among other things, empowers the district collector to consider eviction applications, conduct summary proceedings, issue eviction orders and enforce eviction through the police. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, was dealing with a writ petition filed by R. Srinivas.

On December 15, 2025, an eviction order was issued by the Adilabad district collector, directing him to vacate his father’s house in Adilabad district. The 2022 state amendment, which empowers district collectors to consider eviction applications and compel removals of senior citizens through police intervention to protect their property under Rule 21(3), was alleged to be arbitrary and illegal.

Baglekhar Akash Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that granting such powers to a non-judicial executive authority amounted to excessive delegation of power and violated the principles of separation of powers. He unsuccessfully argued that the Maintenance Court, run by a bailiff, could not perform judicial functions involving legal consequences, such as eviction.

The state lawyer argues that the 2007 Act is a welfare legislation aimed at providing quick and effective solutions to older persons. It was noted that Rule 21(3) validly empowers the Court to issue appropriate protective orders, including eviction, where necessary for the protection of life and property of senior citizens. He relied on various apex court decisions where it was held that courts under the law have the power to order evictions if necessary to protect senior citizens.

After listening to the arguments, the delegation did not see any justification in the objection and observed that the power to issue evacuation orders in appropriate cases was unimportant in terms of the goal of protecting the rights of senior citizens. The Court observed that the Maintenance Tribunal performs a protective and summative function under a beneficial law and does not replace the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts. Since there was no obvious illegality or unconstitutionality, the bench refused to interfere with the order passed by the Adilabad collector. Accordingly, the request for writ was denied.

2. Release of hospital doctor on bail in case of abuse

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the managing director of Century Hospitals, Banjara Hills and others over alleged large-scale financial misappropriation linked to investments made by medical professionals in a hospital venture. Judge, Dr. He was dealing with the criminal complaint filed by Venugopal Kaukuntla and four others. It was alleged by the prosecution that between 2014-15, the accused, particularly accused No. 1 in his capacity as the managing director of Century Hospitals, approached senior doctors with a proposal to invest in an institution that was represented as a transparent and investor-friendly medical institution.

According to the complaint, the defendant envisioned the venture as a world-class center of medical excellence, thus encouraging the complainant and other doctors to invest significant sums. It was claimed that around Rs 100 billion was mobilized from investor doctors. The complainant accused the petitioners of misappropriation of funds and failure to disclose accurate financial records and alleged that such actions constituted breach of trust, falsification of accounts, and conspiracy. These allegations led to the registration of an offense by the Central Crime Police Station.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations were not criminal and that the dispute was essentially civil and institutional in nature. It was submitted that all transactions were duly reflected in the legal applications before the Registrar of Companies and the National Company Law Tribunal.

The petitioners expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and provide relevant documentary evidence. In opposing the claim, the state argued that the extent of the alleged embezzlement warranted custodial interrogation and that the petitioners did not adequately cooperate with the investigation. After hearing the arguments of the opponents, the judge observed that the investigation was predominantly documentary in nature and the relevant records were available with the legal authorities. Taking this into account, the judge ruled that custodial interrogation was not immediately necessary and granted bail to the petitioners, subject to the circumstances.