The petitioner herein, who is a senior citizen, is aggrieved by Ext.P-5 appellate order dated 21.11.2017 rendered by the 1st respondent appellate Tribunal, by which the petitioner's appeal as per Ext.P-3 impugning Exts.P-2 order rendered by the original Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has been rejected. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

I. Declare that the finding in the Ext.P-5 order passed under the authority of the first respondent, declaring that execution of the gift deed before the age of 60 will not confer the right of cancellation of the deed at the event of neglect by the person who received the gift and denying maintenance to the senior citizen from their relative who received their property, are violative of the Sections 23 and Section 4(4) respectively of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and therefore, the Ext.P-5 order is unsustainable in law.

II. Issue a writ of Certiorari or such other writ or order quashing the Ext.P-5 order of the first respondent.

III. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ or order directing the first respondent to proceed and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law declared by this Hon'ble court.”

2. Heard Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.2.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had executed settlement deed No.3156/2008 dated 30.12.2008 of SRO, Kattur, Thrissur District, whereby the property covered therein was settled in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is his wife and that thereafter, the 2nd respondent had totally neglected him. On the grievance that the 2nd respondent wife had neglected him and had not taken due care of him, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-1 application dated 17.10.2016 before the Tribunal presided over by the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.) constituted as per the abovesaid Act, seeking a direction for grant of maintenance from the 2nd respondent as well as for cancellation of the settlement deed. By Ext.P-2 order dated 27.1.2017, the Tribunal had dismissed the pleas of the petitioner on the ground that similar plea made by the petitioner before the Family Court was rejected by that court and that Ext.P-1 complaint will not come within the purview of the abovesaid Act relating to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Aggrieved by Ext.P-2, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P-3 appeal under Sec.16 of the abovesaid Act 2007 before the 1st respondent appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as per the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 21.11.2017. The main ground on which the 1st respondent appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P-5 is that the settlement deed was executed and registered on 30.12.2008 and as on that date, the petitioner was only aged 58 and that therefore, he will not fulfill the definition of “senior citizen” as per Sec. 2(h) of the above Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain a complaint under Sec.23(1) of the Act. It is this order at Ext.P-5 that is essentially under challenge in this Writ Petition (Civil).

4. Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned Ext.P-5 appellate order was rendered by an officer of the rank of Sub Collector, who was only holding the additional in charge of the post of the District Collector, as the regular incumbent in the post of District Collector was then not available. On this basis, it is contended that Sec.15(2) of the Act mandates that the appellate Tribunal shall be presided necessarily over by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate, in contradistinction to the provisions contained in Sec.7(2) of the said Act wh