Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Bikramjit & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 6987 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondents: Ms. Shivani Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Eviction order - Petitioners challenged the order of eviction issued by District Magistrate without granting them a proper opportunity to present their case - Court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness and adequate hearing in such proceedings, noting undue haste in the decision-making process. (Para 4)
(B) Summary Proceedings - The court held that the nature of summary proceedings under the Act requires the authority to provide a fair opportunity for all parties to present their arguments, which was lacking in this case. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, claiming insufficient opportunity to respond to the application made by the senior citizen.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate failed to provide a fair opportunity to the Petitioners, leading to an unjust decision.
Issues: The primary issue involved whether the Petitioners were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their defense before the District Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural fairness is paramount in eviction proceedings, and any haste in decision-making without adequate hearing is unacceptable.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for certiorari under article 226. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners claim lack of opportunity to contest eviction. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent claims well-reasoned eviction order. (Para 3) |
| 4. court critiques inadequate hearing process. (Para 4) |
| 5. court remands case for fresh decision by magistrate. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala, whereby an application moved by Respondent No.3 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was allowed and the Petitioners were directed to be evicted from the premises in question.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has invited the attention of the Court to the para 2 of the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 to contend that upon their appearance before the District Magistrate, Patiala, the impugned order was passed without even affording them any opportunity to file the reply or submissions. He submits that the District Magistrate, Patiala has shown undue haste in deciding the claim of the senior citizen in his favour without even taking the rival stands of the Petitioners and this has caused prejudice to them. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the senior citizen be dismissed.
3. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3, who submits that Respondent No.2 has passed a well reasoned order, whereby the Petitioners have been evicted from the house, which belongs to the senior citizen and this fact is not even disputed by the Petitioners. He submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the above background, it transpires that the District Magistrate, Patiala on 15.11.2017 asked the Petitioners to submit their response and observed that no reply has been filed by them. The Presiding officer proceeded to accept the prayer of the senior citizen primarily on the ground that the house is owned by the father. Thus, it is clear that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioners when the claim is decided against them. A perusal of the written statement filed by the senior citizen also contains an averment that when the Petitioners were given an opportunity to defend their case, they could not give any defence, therefore, the District Magistrate, Patiala has rightly passed the impugned order.
5. Thus, considering the above background, particularly the nature of the summary proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the District Magistrate, Patiala has shown undue haste in deciding the claim in favour of the senior citizen without giving adequate opportunity to the contestants, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back before the District Magistrate, Patiala for deciding afresh. Since, the application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed by senior citizen in October, 2017, therefore, the same be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. Parties shall appear before the District Magistrate, Patialal on 28.02.2023.
Petition is allowed.
