IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Major Singh ….Petitioner Versus Appellate Tribunal cum Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barnala, Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate, for Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Pratibha Bali, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against an order dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure P-3), vide which, an application preferred by him under Sections 4, read with Section 9, and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (the Act of 2007), was dismissed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, and also the order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure P-5), whereby, the statutory appeal against the order (supra), has been dismissed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Barnala.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of joining the issues on merits, points out that the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure P-5), has been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction. In this regard, he draws attention of this Court towards the Punjab Government Notification bearing No. 8/10/2008- 8SS/542 dated 15.07.2008, and in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 7(1)&(2) and 15(1)&(2) of the Act of 2007, the Governor of Punjab constituted the Maintenance Tribunals/Appellate Tribunals, and their jurisdictions for the implementation of the Act of 2007, are as under:-

3. Consequently, it is submitted that since the impugned order has not been passed by the statutory authority, i.e. District Magistrate, but by an authority exercising sub-delegated powers, i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, the same, indeed, requires interference of this Court.

4. Upon being pointedly asked, as to whether, under the statutory provisions, the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals are competent to sub-delegate the quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute, learned State counsel fairly concedes that such functions and powers cannot be sub-delegated. In this regard, a copy of the instructions dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Directorate Social Security and Women & Child Development, Punjab, has been produced in the Court, wherethrough, it has been categorically clarified that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Act of 2007 are not authorized to sub- delegate their quasi-judicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted hereunder:-

“To All District Magistrates/Presiding Officers, Appellate Tribunal Constituted under Sections 15(1) & 15(2) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

No. P-3(SS)/2025/82189 Dated, Chandigarh 27-10-2025 Sub: Implementation of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 26.09.2025 in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs.

Additional District Magistrate & Others.

In continuation of this Department's Notification No.

8/10/2008-8SS/798 dated 27th August 2008, (Flag-A) whereby the District Magistrates were designated as Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, attention is invited to the recent directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others decided on 26.09.2025. (Flag-B)

2. The Hon'ble Court has categorically clarified that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the said Act are not authorized to sub-delegate their