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, which inter alia empowers the district collector to entertain eviction applications, conduct summary proceedings, pass eviction orders and enforce eviction through the police. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin and was dealing with a writ petition filed by R. Srinivas.

An eviction order was passed on December 15, 2025, by the district collector of Adilabad directing him to vacate the house of his father in Adilabad district. It was contended that the 2022 state amendment that empowered district collectors to entertain eviction applications, and enforce removals through police intervention to protect the property of senior citizens under Rule 21(3) is arbitrary and illegal.

Baglekhar Akash Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that vesting such powers in a non-judicial executive authority amounted to excessive delegation and violated the principles of separation of powers. He unsuccessfully argued that the Maintenance Tribunal, being manned by an executive officer, cannot exercise adjudicatory functions involving civil consequences such as eviction.

Counsel for the state contend that the Act, 2007 was a welfare legislation intended to provide speedy and effective remedies to elderly persons. It was pointed out that Rule 21(3), validly empowered the Tribunal to pass appropriate protective orders, including eviction where necessary to safeguard the life and property of senior citizens. He placed reliance on various apex court judgments wherein it was ruled that tribunals under the Act were empowered to order eviction if required to protect senior citizens.

After hearing the arguments, the panel, finding no merit in the challenge, observed that the power to order eviction in appropriate cases is incidental to the objective of safeguarding rights of senior citizens. The court observed that the Maintenance Tribunal performed a protective and summary function under a beneficial statute and did not supplant the jurisdiction of constitutional courts. In the absence of any manifest illegality or constitutional infirmity, the panel declined to interfere with the order passed by the Adilabad collector. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

2. Bail to hospital MD in misappropriation case

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

According to the complaint, the accused projected the venture as a world-class centre of medical excellence, thereby inducing the complainant and other doctors to invest substantial sums. It was alleged that nearly Rs.100 crore were mobilised from the investing doctors. The complainant accused the petitioners of misappropriation of funds and failure to disclose accurate financial records, contending that such acts constituted criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts, and conspiracy. These allegations led to the registration of a crime by the Central Crime Station.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations lacked criminal intent and that the dispute was essentially civil and corporate in nature. It was submitted that all transactions were duly reflected in statutory filings before the Registrar of Companies and the National Company Law Tribunal.

The petitioners expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and furnish relevant documentary evidence. Opposing the plea, the state argued that the scale of the alleged misappropriation warranted custodial interrogation and contended that the petitioners had not adequately cooperated with the investigation. Upon hearing the rival submissions, the judge observed that the investigation was predominantly documentary in nature and that the relevant records were available with statutory authorities. Taking this into consideration, the judge held that custodial interrogation was not immediately necessary and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions.