The legal question of whether an appeal under Section 16 of the Act can be filed by persons other than senior citizens or parents was referred to a Larger Bench for clarification.

ORDER

1] Heard.

2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. To set-aside order dated 13.12.2024 passed by respondent no.3 in case bearing No.Case number/0020/Appeal/2024-25.

ii. Allow this petition with costs.

iii. Any other relief, this Hon‟ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner.”

3] The petitioner happens to be a senior citizen, and is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3 – Additional Collector, Indore on 13.12.2024, in an appeal preferred under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 2007‟) arising out of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ order dated 23.09.2024, passed by S.D.O., Malharganj, District – Indore under Rule 19 of the M.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 (in short „the Rules of 2009‟), directing the respondent No.1 to vacate the disputed premises within 30 days‟

time.

4] The application under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2009 was filed by the petitioner seeking possession of her house from the respondent No.1 – Manju Kunare, who happens to be her daughter.

5] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal preferred before the Additional Collector under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 was not competent, as the provision of appeal is available only to the senior citizen or a parent, and not to the other party, and thus, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on this ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to entertain an appeal preferred under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 by the respondent No.1, as the appeal can only be entertained if it is preferred by a senior citizen or a parent. In support of his submission, Shri Abhinav Dhanodkhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Choupda & Ors. Vs. Subhadra Choupda and others in W.P. No.18083 of 2022 dated 18.04.2023. Counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru in the case of SRI K. Lokesh Vs. The Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens & Ors. in Writ Appeal No.254 of 2024 (GM-RES)

dated 20.12.2024 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ

6] Whereas, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case of Smt. Roopam @ Jyoti Sharma and Anr. Vs. District Magistrate Lucknow and Ors. passed in Writ – No.-21188 of 2021 dated 18.05.2022. Counsel has also submitted that even the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Jat & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in W.P. No.9078 of 2022 dated 14.07.2023 has held that such an appeal can also be preferred by the persons, other than senior citizen or parents, and it is held that Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 must be read to provide for a right of appeal to any of the affected parties as there is no negative provision in the Act, denying the right of appeal to the parties, other than the parents and senior citizens. Counsel has also referred to a Bill proposed “The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill, 2019" to be introduced in the parliament, which has proposed the amendment in Section16 to the effect that:-

“14. In Section 16 of the Principal Act,-

(i) in sub-section (1),-

(a) in the opening portion, after the words “senior citizen or a parent”, the words “or any of