Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajendra Menon, V. Kameswar Rao, JJ.
Aarshya Gulati (Through : Next Friend Mrs. Divya Gulati) And Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Government of Nct of Delhi And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 347 of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous No. 1417 of 2018, 36104 of 2018, 40805 of 2018
Decided On : 30-05-2019
T.K. Ganju, Adv., Divyanshu Goyal, Adv., Swati Jain, Adv., Shikha Sinha, Adv., Sanjoy Ghose, Adv., Urvi Mohan, Adv., V.K. Bali, Adv., Aditya Soni, Adv., Mudit Gupta, Adv.
Headnote:
The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016 (the Rules), which provide a summary procedure for the eviction of a senior citizen's son, daughter, or legal heir from his or her property on account of ill-treatment or non-maintenance. The Court held that the Rules were a valid exercise of the State Government's rule-making power under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act), and that they did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, two minor children, challenged the vires of the Rules on the grounds that they were ultra vires the Act, violated their fundamental rights, and were vague and arbitrary. The petitioners argued that the Act did not authorize the State Government to formulate rules specifically for a summary procedure for eviction and that the Rules purported to create substantive rights, disabilities, and obligations that were not contemplated under the Act. The petitioners also argued that the Rules conferred wide and unfettered powers on the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, who is not a judicial authority, to decide complicated and disputed questions of fact and law without any trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments and held that the Rules were a valid exercise of the State Government's rule-making power under the Act. The Court held that the Act empowered the State Government to confer such powers and duties on the District Magistrate for the protection of the life and property of senior citizens and that the Rules provided a comprehensive action plan for achieving this objective. The Court also held that the Rules did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights, as they were a reasonable restriction on their right to property in order to protect the rights of senior citizens.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rules were ultra vires the Act. 2. Whether the Rules violated the petitioners' fundamental rights. 3. Whether the Rules were vague and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Rules were a valid exercise of the State Government's rule-making power under the Act. The Court held that the Act empowered the State Government to confer such powers and duties on the District Magistrate for the protection of the life and property of senior citizens and that the Rules provided a comprehensive action plan for achieving this objective. 2. The Court held that the Rules did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights, as they were a reasonable restriction on their right to property in order to protect the rights of senior citizens. 3. The Court held that the Rules were not vague and arbitrary, as they provided clear and detailed guidelines for the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner to follow in exercising their powers under the Rules.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutional validity of the Rules.
JUDGMENT :
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Cm No. 1417/2018 (by applicant Mrs. Divya Gulati under Order 32 Rule 1 of CPC to act as next friend of the petitioners to prefer the accompanying writ petition)
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.
CM Nos. 40805/2018 and 36104/2018 (under Section 151 CPC for placing additional documents on record)
For the reasons stated in the application, the same are allowed. Additional documents are taken on record. Applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 347/2018
1. This petition has been filed by two minor petitioners through their mother as their next friend with the following prayers:
"In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate Writ and thereby quash the Rule 22(3) and 22(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016 for being ultra-vires the Parent Act and the Constitution of India, 1950;
(b) Issue a Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate Writ and thereby set aside the Order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the Ld. Division Commissioner in Appeal bearing No. PA/Div. Comm./Appeal No. 08/2017/Sec-16 to the extent it curtails the right of the Petitioners to raise preliminary issues/legal defences;
(c) Issue a Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate Writ and thereby quash the impugned show cause notice dated 14.12.2017, issued by the Ld. DM in furtherance to the Impugned Order;
(d) Pass any orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
(i). The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted on 29th December, 2007 with aim of providing more effective mechanism for providing maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
(ii). Vide a notification dated 30th June, 2009, respondent no.1 in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act notified Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and a separate Comprehensive Action Plan was also framed under Section 32(2)(f) of the Act. The said Plan, through Rule 22 (1) and (2), cast a duty on concerned police officials to prepare a list of senior citizens in their area, regularly visit senior citizens and to promptly attend to their complaints. Therefore, by virtue of the said Action Plan an effective channel for communication between senior citizens and police officials was provided. It is however to be noted that under the said Action Plan there was no specific provision for any remedy of eviction.
(iii) It is stated that the petitioners claiming to be coparceners in Kuldip Singh and Sons, HUF have already instituted CS(OS) 2223/2013, a Suit for Partition of all family properties and businesses including their present residential house.
Respondent no.4 is grandfather of the petitioners and father of respondent no.5.
(iv) In response to the said Suit for Partition, respondent no.4 is stated to have filed a writ petition seeking remedies under the aforesaid Action Plan as also eviction of the present petitioners from their current residential house. The said writ petition was however withdrawn. Despite efforts, disputes between the parties could not be resolved amicably.
(v) On 19th December, 2016 respondent no.1 is stated to have amended the Comprehensive Action Plan, thereby incorporating a summary procedure for eviction of a senior citizen's son / daughter / legal heir from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment. The Rules were further amended on 28th July, 2017 to expand the scope of the term "Property" under the said Rules. Resultantly, the remedy of eviction was extended to "property of any kind whether moveable or immo
