Orders Passed By Tribunals Under Senior Citizens Act Also Amenable To Challenge Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora relied upon various judgments on the issue and observed that the orders passed by the tribunals as well as the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions are all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

“The orders passed by tribunals are, however, separately also amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution. As against the order of a tribunal such as the Maintenance Tribunal, the aggrieved party, therefore, has the option to either invoke Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution depending upon the nature of relief sought in the petition,” the court said.

The bench was dealing with an appeal challenging an order passed by a single judge setting aside the order passed by a maintenance tribunal. The tribunal had allowed an application moved by a senior citizen seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed by her in favour of two individuals with respect to roof rights in a property.

The single judge had allowed the plea moved by one of the individuals under Articles 226 and 227. An appeal was then preferred before a division bench by the legal heir of the senior citizen.

The bench held the appeal to be maintainable and rejected the preliminary objection raised by the two individuals on maintainability of the intra court appeal.

“Under Rule 22 (3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (as amended in 2016), the Maintenance Tribunal is presided over by the Dy. Commissioner/District Magistrate ('DM'). The appeal against the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal lies before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi as per Section 16 of the Act of 2007 at the instance of the senior citizen alone. The orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal are, therefore, an exercise of quasi-judicial function by administrative persons as contemplated in paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa (Supra),” the court said.

It added that the single judge was not called upon to issue any ancillary directions under Article 227 to the Maintenance Tribunal and that it only et aside the impugned order for being in excess of its statutory jurisdiction.

The court observed that the order of the maintenance tribunal impugned before the single judge was not a judicial order of a civil court. It concluded:

“In view of the aforenoted facts and position of law, the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal raised by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is hereby rejected and the present appeal is held to be maintainable. It is accordingly directed that the appeal shall now be heard on merits.”

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. N. K. Kantawala and Mr. A. M. Nair, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. K. Bhuchar and Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocates for R-1 & R-3

Title: KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367

Click here to read order