Important points:
" The Maintenance Tribunal could not have issued a warrant of arrest to enforce the attendance of the respondent before it because as has been declared in Sujanapal`s case, even if an officer, while acting judicially, commits an error or issues an erroneous order, he/she would be fully protected from the legal action.
" The petitioner does not have a case that the Maintenance Tribunal has misused its judicial power for personal gain or that it has been used for dishonest or malafide reasons but only that it has exercised jurisdiction erroneously-The limited prayer of the petitioner is only for compensation from the Maintenance Tribunal and the State of Kerala- Transfer the maintenance case to another Tribunal.
" No Judicial Officer can be so held responsible under the prescriptions of the Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963 and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

1. The petitioners make a startling prayer in this writ petition that the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short) and the Government of Kerala be directed to pay the 1st petitioner Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, allegedly because he was arrested by the Police on the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal issued under Section 6(3) of the Act.

2. The petitioners assert that the Maintenance Tribunal obtains no power to issue a warrant of arrest to compel appearance of parties before it in a proceedings under Section 23 of the Act because, according to them, such power could be exercised by the Tribunal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only for the purpose of securing implementation of an order for maintenance awarded to a senior citizen and not in any other event.

3. The petitioners, thereafter allege factually that they had no notice of the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal and it was therefore, that they had not appeared before it; but that, even without adverting to this, the Tribunal had issued an arrest warrant, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P5, constraining the police to arrest the 1st petitioner and detain him in a police station for over a day. They contend that the warrant of arrest was issued in gross violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore, that the Maintenance Tribunal is liable to pay them compensation; and consequently that the Government is bound to pay such amounts under the principles of Constitutional tort.

4. Interestingly, the hypostasis of the petitioner's claim against the Government is that the Maintenance Tribunal is its subservient, since it has been appointed by the Government under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, that they are thus vicariously liable for the mistakes committed by the Tribunal. He relies on Section 7 of the Act to say that it is the Government which appoints the Tribunal and axiomatically that they are responsible for excess committed by the Tribunal, especially when it acts in contravention of the powers under the Statute. On such allegations, the petitioners pray that the State of Kerala and the Maintenance Tribunal be directed to pay them compensation as afore prayed for.

5. The learned State Attorney, Sri. K.V. Sohan, appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala and the Maintenance Tribunal, submits that this writ petition is completely misdirected for many reasons. For the first, he says that the argument that the Maintenance Tribunal is an “employee” of the Government is erroneous, since it is a Statutory Body; for the second, that the State cannot be held responsible, even vicariously, for the actions of the Tribunal which acts as an independent judicial entity; and for the third, he points out that even going by the averments of the petitioners in this writ petition, the State and its machinery had acted without any fault, while implementing the warrant of arrest issued by the Maintenance Tribunal and therefore, that no liability can be cast against it or its functionaries. He finally contends that the third prayer in this writ petition, namely, to transfer the maintenance application involved in this case to another Tribunal, has already been implemented and therefore, that nothing further remains in this writ petition.

6. On a consideration of the above submissions, it is indubitably evident that the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to his alleged illegal arrest, consequent to Ext.P5 warrant. He vehemently asserts that the Maintenance Tribunal did not obtain the jurisdiction to issue the said warrant, particularly, because the powers vested with the Tribunal under Section 6(3) of the Act is only for the purpose of securing attendance of the parties in relation to adjudication of maintenance to the senior citizen and nothing else. He thus predicates that the Maintenance Tribunal has