Appeal From Tribunal's Order Under Senior Citizens Act Can Be Filed By Both Parties: Karnataka High Court

Advocate Shivaraj S. Ballolli, appearing for the Respondent and Government pleader V S Kalsurmath, for respondent 2, had opposed the petition saying that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the said Act. They relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rakhi Sharma v. The State, holding that Section 16 of the said Act confers the right of appeal on both sides.

Advocate Manjunath G. Patil on the other side, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Madras High Court in K. Raju v. Union of India and Others has held that under Section 16 of the Act, only parents or the senior citizen can maintain appeal. Hence, he contended that the petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy much less under Section 16 of the said Act.

Noting that the above judgments only have a persuasive value, the Court proceeded to examine the relevant provisions of the Senior Citizens Act. It noted that Section 15 (Constitution of Appellate Tribunal) nowhere mentions that appeal against the order of the Tribunal be confined to a senior citizen or a parent.

Similarly under Section 16 (Appeals), the right to file an appeal is not excluded specifically.

In this backdrop, it observed:

"The said Act has been enacted by the Parliament with an object to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto."

It added,

"Suppose if the right of appeal confined only to senior citizen or parents, if, the order passed by the Tribunal is aggrieved by both the parties, one preferring appeal and the other taking recourse to Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

The court also referred to the Apex Court judgements in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Others reported in (1979) 2 SCC and Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and Others reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59, in respect of the interpretation of statutes.

It said "The only interpretation can be the right of appeal under Section 16 (1) of the said Act is conferred on both sides. It is a case of an accidental omission and not of conscious exclusion. Therefore, the impugned order passed under Section 7 of the Act is an appeal under Section 16 of the Act."

The court disposed of the petition filed by the holding that "Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Act, the above writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act."

Case Title: M.Sunitha (Vidyasri) And M.Shashikala Mugadura

Case No: Writ Petition No.147056/2020

Date Of Order: 20 July, 2021

Appearance: Advocate Manjunath G Patil For Petitioner; Advocate Shivaraj S. Ballolli, For R1; Advocate V.S. Kalasurmath, For R2.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order 

(Edited by Akshita Saxena)