AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order 01.4.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal (Senior Citizen), Rohtak, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the release deeds dated 21.11.2019 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) was dismissed. The petitioners further sought quashing of the order dated 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal (Senior Citizen), Rohtak, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 01.4.2021 (Annexure P-4), has been dismissed.
Succinctly stated, the petitioners herein instituted an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) before the Maintenance Tribunal (Senior Citizen) Sub Division, Rohtak, seeking cancellation of the transfer deeds No. 13574 and 13575 dated 21.11.2019 executed in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5. Vide order dated 01.4.2021 (Annexure P-4), the Maintenance Tribunal concerned dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 (Annexure P-7). Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to Haryana Government’s notification dated 17.11.2016, prescribing the composition of the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, to submit that the impugned order dated 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 (Annexure P-7) suffers from illegality, having been passed coram non judice. It is submitted that under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate acting as their respective Chairmen. In the present case, however, the impugned order dated 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 (Annexure P-7) was passed in the absence of the requisite two members. Therefore, the said order was rendered without the mandated coram, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment dated 26.10.2016 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18784 of 2015, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:
“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and thus the present writ petition is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal constituted as per notification dated 10.12.2012 to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by passing a reasoned order.”
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the private respondents do not dispute that the impugned order 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 (Annexure P-7) is vitiated as it was passed coram non judice.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 (Annexure P-7) was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and lawful coram prescribed in the notification dated 17.11.2016. Consequently, the same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the order 27.1.2023/01.2.2023 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Appellate Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. The parties shall cause appearance before the authority concerned on 02.9.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.
Disposed of accordingly.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.