IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Jagdish Jaglan – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate Jind And Others – Respondents
CWP-34543-2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 23-01-2024
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act - Eviction Orders - Section 23
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing their application for protection of life and property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court found the order to be cryptic and non-speaking, and remanded the matter to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the cryptic order and directed the Maintenance Tribunal to independently consider the application filed by the petitioner, without opining on the merits of the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to pass eviction orders, the impact of relevant judgments, and the powers of the Maintenance Tribunal and District Magistrates in light of the Act and related instructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the authority of the Maintenance Tribunal to pass eviction orders under Section 23 of the Act, considering the relevant legal provisions and the impact of previous judgments. It also highlighted the non-speaking nature of the original order as a ground for setting it aside.
Final Decision: The court set aside the original order, remanded the matter to the Maintenance Tribunal, and directed independent consideration of the application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J.
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction for setting aside the order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-6) vide which the application moved by the petitioner/senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2007') for protection of life and property has been dismissed.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-6) has been passed without going into the merits of the case and without considering the contentions of the parties. It is further submitted that the said order being cryptic and non-speaking deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone.
3. Learned State counsel has pointed out that in the present case, a prayer for eviction has been made in the proceedings before the District Magistrate, but on account of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4744-2018 titled as "Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others", the District Magistrate is not authorized to pass an eviction order, but however, the Maintenance Tribunal can pass the eviction order in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 and for the said purpose, learned State counsel has relied upon the instructions dated 29.11.2023, issued by the Director General, Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of SCs & BCs and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. The said instructions dated 29.11.2023 are reproduced herein under: -
Director General
Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of SCs & BCs and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department,
Haryana, Chandigarh
To,
Advocate General, Haryana
The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
No.21754 OAH/SEWA/2023 Dated 29-11-2023
Subject: CWP No. 26035 of 2023 titled as Smt. Sheela Devi Vs District Collector-cum-Presiding Officer under Maintenance Tribunal, Gurugram and ors.
With reference to your D.O. No.3679 dated 23.04.2023 on subject cited above, it is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court, passing the orders dated 29.11.2023 in the subject captioned writ petition, raised some queries on the following points:
i) Whether after passing of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.S.Vanitha's case (supra) and of this Court in Ravi Kumar's case (supra), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1387-2023, the authorities are still not passing orders in cases wherein prayer for eviction has been made and if so, the reasons for the same.
ii) Whether the letter (Annexure P-9) issued by the Director General, Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of SC & BC and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Haryana has any legal basis or not.
iii) Whether, irrespective of the position of law, since it is the duty of the authority under the Act to pass an order and not to simply keep an application seeking eviction pending, then as to why the authority concerned has not passed an order on the same?
With regard to this, it is submitted that the Government of India had enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The erstwhile Social Justice & Empowerment Department was a nodal department to implement the provisions of the said Act. The erstwhile Social Justice & Empowerment Department. being a nodal department, notified the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. The State Government, through the erstwhile Social Justice & Empowerment Department, introduced an Action Plan, 2015 vide which the District Magistrates in the State of Haryana were empowered to pass the eviction orders to protect the property of the senior citizens/parents. The State Government vide notification dated 01.01.2023 merged the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department with the erstwhile Social J
Smt S Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.
The central legal point established is the authority of the Maintenance Tribunal to pass eviction orders under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and th....
The Maintenance Tribunal holds the jurisdiction to issue eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, superseding the District Magistrate's authority in....
The Maintenance Tribunal can decide eviction applications under Section 23 of the 2007 Act, independent of prior orders under Section 22.
The court clarified that the authorities under the 2007 Act do not have the power to order eviction, but are limited to granting maintenance and addressing fraudulent property transfers.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, which empowers the Tribunal to order eviction of the occupant fr....
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.