Only Senior Citizens/ Parents Entitled To Prefer Appeal Against Order Of Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007: Madras High Court

Holding thus, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that any aggrieved party to an order passed under the Act can file an appeal under Section 16.

It observed,

"When the clear words of a statute do not permit any other meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to discover a right in favour of a class of persons excluded by necessary implication in the appellate provision."

Specifically, with respect to the language employed under Section 16, the Bench said,

"When the words used in Section 16 of the Act are "Any senior citizen or a parent ... aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may ... prefer an appeal..." and the other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the parent in the alternative, there is no room to imagine that others aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides."

Perfectly simple provision need not be twisted

At the outset, the Bench observed that the instant petition has been filed without any basis. "A perfectly simple provision lucidly enunciated is sought to be twisted to imply something that it clearly does not permit," it observed.

It noted that sub-section 1 of Section 16 permits only any senior citizen or a parent, who is aggrieved by an order of a tribunal passed under such Act, to prefer an appeal to the appellate tribunal.

"The words used in the provision are lucid and, by no stretch of imagination, can such clear words of the statute be read or understood or interpreted to imply that any class of persons other than any senior citizen or a parent may be entitled to prefer an appeal under such provision," it thus observed.

Disagreement with Punjab & Haryana High Court

During the course of hearing, the Court's attention was drawn to the case of Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India, AIR 2014 P&H 121. Therein, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that Section 16(1) must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.

The Division Bench in the instant case was not persuaded by the above findings and thus, expressed its respectful disagreement.

Right to Appeal not inherent but creature of a statute

The Division Bench said that it is a settled law that an appeal is a creature of a statute and no right of appeal inheres in any person unless such right is expressly conferred by any statute.

It observed,

"It is possible for a right of appeal to be hedged with conditions or even a right of appeal to be granted to a class of persons and not granted to another. It is the wisdom of the legislature to decide what classes of persons would be entitled to the right of appeal and what conditions may be attached to the exercise of such right and how such right may be exercised."

Case Title: K. Raju v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order