IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
Simrat Randhawa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 4744 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2020
JUDGMENTRajiv Narain Raina, J. - Questions of considerable public importance have been raised in this petition which have the potential to affect a large number of cases arising out of 'The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007' (for short 'the MWPSC Act' or 'the Act') in the matter of "eviction" by the Maintenance Tribunals set up under section 7 of the MWPSC Act. The Act provides for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
2. The validity of the Punjab Action Plan - 2014 is the centre stage of this case to examine whether it can pass judicial scrutiny tested on several grounds raised by the petitioner which are adverted to below and discussed with the help of precedents and a large number of legal principles addressed to determine the issue/s on a larger canvas which is not judicially travelled before past precedents, as Mr. Anupam Gupta puts it, on the question of eviction and dispossession under the Action Plan, the legal validity of which is challenged on the ground of it being manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires the Act itself and the Rules framed there under as they are inconsistent with the scheme, objects and purposes of the MWPSC Act which was to establish only a Maintenance Tribunal to carry out the purposes of the Act in which eviction was not part of the enacted social policy.
3. The mischief sought to be tackled by parliament due to withering of the joint family system gave birth to the MWPSC Act is contained in the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill. It would be useful to revisit those declarations as the backdrop for the determination of a limited issue raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the Punjab Action Plan, 2014 notified under the Act and rules introducing the concept of eviction for the first time outside the common law. They are reproduced:-
"Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.
2. The Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to make provisions for setting up old age homes for providing maintenance to the indigent older persons.
The Bill further proposes to provide better medical facilities to the senior citizens and provisions for protection of their life and property.
3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for:-
(a) appropriate mechanism to be set up to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens
(b) providing better medical facilities to senior citizens
(c) for institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons.
(d) setting up of old age homes in every district.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives."
4. Section 2(b) of the MWPSC Act defines "maintenance" to include provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. Section 2(f) defines "property" to mean property of any kind, whether movable
A.B.L. International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
Advocates-on-Record Assn. vs. Union of India
Ashwinder Singh & another vs. Bhagwant Singh
C.K. Vasu vs. Circle Inspector of Police
Chandra Mohan vs. State of U.P
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pearl Mechanical Engineering and Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
Ghan Shyam Das Gupta & another vs. Anant Kumar Sinha & others
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao
Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab
Hamina Kang vs. District Magistrate UT Chandigarh & others
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate
I.N. Saksena vs. State of M.P.
Indian Aluminum Co. vs. State of Kerala
Indian Express Newspaper vs. Union of India
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain
J.K. Industries Limited & another vs. Union of India & others
Jagmeet Kaur Pannu vs. Rani it Kaur Pannu
Javantilal Amratlal Shodhan vs. F.N.Rana
Javantram Vallbhdas Meswania vs. Vallabhdas Govindram Meswania
K.T. Plantation P Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka
K.T. Plantation and in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India & Another
Kaiser-I-Hind P Ltd. vs. National Textile Corporation Maharashtra North Ltd.
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab
Kesavanda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
Kuldip Navar vs. Union of India
Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Kshetra Trust vs. Collector Hardiwar
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India
Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India
Maganlal Chaganlal P Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Major Harmohinder Singh Retd. vs. State of Punjab & others
Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India
Moti Ram Deka etc. vs. General Manager, N.E.P. Railways, Maligaon, Pandu, etc.
Mrs. Sanjana M.Wig vs. Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3454
Nasir vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & others
Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad vs. Emperor
Promil Tomar & others vs. State of Haryana & others
Ram Jawava Kapur vs. State of Punjab
Ramchandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Jvoti Chavare
S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India
Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
Sanjeev Kumar & another vs. District Magistrate, UT Chandigarh & others
Savita Sharma & others vs. District Magistrate & others
Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India & others
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors.
State of Bihar vs. Bal Mukund Sah
State of Karnataka vs. Union of India
State of Rajasthan vs. Padmavati Devi
State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Krishnamurthy
Sumesh Anand vs. Vinod Anand & others
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & another vs. Union of India
The Collector of Customs, Madras vs. Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Anr.
Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association & Madras Bar Association
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.