IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7300 of 2025 ======================================================

Rounak Sinha ... ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors.

... ... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rounak Sinha For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General For the Union of India : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Sr. CGC Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate For the B.C.I. : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL @ ANSHUL RAJ ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

2 27-01-2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Rounak Sinha, a learned Advocate of this Court, with the following prayer:

“1.(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction to declare that Section 17 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is ultra vires of the Constitution, and void, repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1960.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the right of the Advocates / Legal practitioners to represent the either parties before the Tribunals / Appellate Tribunals, constituted under Act 56 of 2007.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, directing the Learned Appellate Tribunal, Patna constituted under the maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to allow the Petitioner to appear as an Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Parties namely Jaju Kumar Singhal and Jimmy Kumar, Both R/o Mahadeva Road, Bihta Patna in the Senior Citizen Appeal Case No.16/2024-25 and consider the case on its merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.”

2. At the outset, the petitioner placed a decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3074 of 2019 and CMAPPL.14133/2019, where the vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereafter ‘2007 Act’) was challenged. The said decision has been taken on record and in the operative portion thereof it has been held as follows:

“9. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, by way of the said judgment, had requested the Central Government to have a re- look into the provisions of the Maintenance Act in context of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

10. We are informed that as of yet neither any decision has been taken in that respect nor any appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

11. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and direct that Section 17 would not come in way of legal representation on behalf of the parties before the Maintenance Tribunal.”

3. It seems that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court passed in a case of Paramjit Kumar Saroya and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors. MANU/0765/2014 wherein it has been held in paragraph no. 51 as follows:

51. We, thus, conclude on the provisions of the Acts as under:-

(i) We would request the Central Government to have a re-look into the provisions of the said Act in view of our observations aforesaid, more so in the context of Section 30 of the Advocates Act.

(ii) The right to appeal is conferred on a party aggrieved under Section 16 of the said Act.

(iii) Section 17 would not come in the way of legal representation on behalf of parties post 15.06.2011 in view of Section 30 of the Advocates Act having come into force.”

4. The learned counsel for the Union of India seeks for an adjournment.

5. Let the learned counsel for Union of India take specific instruction as to whether the Division Bench order of the Punjab & H