[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.Raju Kantha vs The District Social Welfare Officer on 6 March, 2026
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
WP No. 7887 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
WP No. 7887 of 2026
M.Raju Kantha
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Social Welfare Officer
8th Floor Singaravelar Maaligai,
Chennai 01.
2. The Revenue Divisional officer
North Chennai,
Chennai
3. The Tahsildar
Madhavaram Taluk,
Madhavaram.
4. M.Jagadeesan
5. J.Usharani
6. V.Sumithra
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
of the respondents 1 and 2 in Letter Na.Ka.No. 1374/ A1/ 2025 dated
06.08.2025 and Na.Ka.No. A7/ 3492/ 2024 dated 03.01.2025 respectively quash
the same and consequentially direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the patta
Nos.392 and 134 issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and issue fresh
patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of property to an extent of 0.03
Hectares situated in Old S.21/1 , New S.No. 164/13 Door No. 16/17 TVK
Street, No. 53 Kathirvedu Village, Madhavaram, Chennai 66 (previously
Tiruvallur district).
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )
WP No. 7887 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Harish Chowdhary
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, GA (R1 to R3)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.08.2025
passed by the first respondent refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the
petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (in short “Senior Citizens Act”) on the ground that the appeal has
been filed beyond the period of 60 days as stipulated under Section 16 of the
Senior Citizens Act.
2. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the
respondents 4 to 6, notice to them in this writ petition is dispensed with by this
Court.
3. The petitioner is a Senior Citizen, aged 72 years old. Aggrieved by the
order passed by the second respondent dated 03.01.2025 rejecting the
petitioner’s application seeking for cancellation of the settlement deed, the
petitioner preferred the aforesaid appeal, which has been rejected by the first
respondent only on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of 60
days. The second proviso to Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act enables the
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )
first respondent to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown.
4. The petitioner is aged 72 years and she is an illiterate woman. While
considering the application seeking for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal, especially from a senior citizen, the appellate authority must consider
the reasons by giving the benefit of doubt to the senior citizen and should be
liberal in considering the delay. The delay in the instant case is not an
inordinate one. Hence, the first respondent ought to have entertained the appeal
after condoning the delay, but, instead, the first respondent has summarily
rejected the petitioner’s appeal only on the ground that the appeal has been filed
beyond the period of 60 days.
5. The petitioner claims that she has been thrown out of the house by the
private respondents, namely, respondents 4 to 6. When such is the case, the first
respondent ought to have entertained the appeal by condoning the delay in filing
the appeal. Since the appeal has been rejected summarily on account of delay in
fling the same by the petitioner, this Court, in the interest of justice, and after
giving due consideration to the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and
illiterate woman, is inclined to quash the impugned order and remand the matter
back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance
with law, with a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed
by the first respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first
respondent for fresh consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits
and in accordance with law. The first respondent shall entertain the appeal as if
the appeal was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section
16 of the Senior Citizens Act; and pass final orders, after hearing the objections
of the respondents 4 to 6 and by adhering to the principles of natural justice,
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
W.M.P.No.8539 of 2026 is ordered.
06-03-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RKM
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )
To
1. The District Social Welfare Officer
The District social Welfare office,
8th Floor Singaravelar Maaligai,
Office of the district Collector
Chennai 01
2. The Revenue Divisional officer
North Chennai,
Chennai
3. The Tahsildar
Madhavaram Taluk,
Madhavaram
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
RKM
06-03-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )
