IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103+206 CM-8290-91-92-CWP-2026 in/&

CWP-11597-2024 Date of decision:19.05.2026 SADHA SINGH ….Petitioner Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUM ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GURDASPUR AND ORS.

….Respondents CM-8293-94-95-CWP-2026 in/&

CWP-11738-2024 Date of decision:19.05.2026 SADHA SINGH ….Petitioner Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUM ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GURDASPUR AND ORS.

….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sandeep Godhara, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI , J. (Oral)

1. Both the petitions are amenable to be decided together, as a common relief has been sought therein.

2. Through the instant petitions, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the orders dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, exercising the powers vested under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby the appeals preferred by respondent no.4 (in both the petitions) have been allowed, and the orders dated 29.07.2021, passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal (respondent no.2), were set aside, and the the transfer deeds dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), ordered to be restored to its original position.

2. During the pendency of the instant petitions, since the demise of petitioner-senior citizen has occurred, therefore, the applicant- Ranjeet Singh, claiming himself to be his legal representative(s), has filed separate applications (CM-8291 & CM-8294-2026) in both the petitions.

3. At this stage, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent no.4, points out that the impugned orders of even date i.e. dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-5), have been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone.

4. 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 concerned, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Upon being pointedly asked, as to whether, under the statu- tory provisions, the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appel- late Tribunals are competent to sub-delegate the quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned State counsel fairly concede that such functions and powers cannot be sub-delegated. Moreover, he has furnished a copy of the instructions dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Directorate Social Secu- rity and Women & Child Development, Punjab, wherethrough, it has been categorically clarified to all the concerned authorities that the Dis- trict Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Act of 2007, are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasi-judi- cial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence. The relevant portion of the instructions is ex-

tracted hereunder:-

“To All District Magistrates/Presiding Officers, Appellate Tri- bunal 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. Ad-

ditional 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 in- vited to the recent directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and H