Writ Petition Challenging Order Of Maintenance Tribunal Maintainable Both Under Article 226 & 227 Of Constitution: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that Writ Petition challenging orders of Maintenance Tribunal is maintainable both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora while noting that the decision of the tribunal however separately amenable to challenge U/A 227 of the Constitution observed, “…with the exception of the judicial orders of the civil courts, it is well settled that the orders passed by tribunals as well as the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions are all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
In the present case, an application was filed by the late Smt. Satya Rani Chopra (predecessor–in–interest of the parties) before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed by her in favour of Respondents.
The Maintenance Tribunal by its order allowed the said application and granted the declaration that the gift deed is null and void. Respondent challenged the impugned order by filing the Writ Petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Maintenance Tribunal.
The legal heir of late Smt. Satya Rani Chopra approached the High Court with the present Letters Patent Appeal.
As per the Counsel for the respondent, the Maintenance Tribunal is a quasi-judicial tribunal. He stated that the High Court did not exercise its original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and therefore, the present intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the impugned judgment.
As per the Counsel for the Appellant, Respondent filed the said petition expressly invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. He further argued that having elected to file the writ petition under both the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court cannot now deprive the Appellant herein of the valuable right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court at Lahore, as applicable to this Court.
It was further argued that Respondent prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. He stated that for all intent and purposes, the writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution therefore, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the Maintenance Tribunal exercised his original civil jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that Single Judge of the High Court while setting aside the order concluded that the jurisdictional facts or averments necessary for invoking Section 23 of the Act and seeking cancellation of the registered gift deeds were wholly absent in the original application and hence concluded that in the absence of the said necessary averments, the application could not have been allowed by the Maintenance Tribunal.
The bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa where it dealt with the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in dealing with the ‘writ of certiorari’ against the order of the Election Tribunal where SC observed, “One of the fundamental principles regarding the issuing of a writ of certiorari, is, that the writ can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate on the validity of judicial acts. The expression “judicial acts” includes the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in contrast with what are purely ministerial acts.”
As per the Court Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabinath clarified the term ‘judicial acts’ used in the abovementioned judgment and observed that the term is not meant to refer to judicial orders of Civil Courts. The Supreme Court held that judicial orders of the Civil Courts can be challenged by a party in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution alone and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court noted the observations made in the Writ Petition on the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal and further observed that a Single Judge was not called upon to issue any further ancillary directions under Article 227 of the Constitution to the Maintenance Tribunal.
Hence, the Court concluded that the High Court exercised its power under Article 226 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court rejected the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal raised by the Respondent is hereby rejected and the present appeal is held to be maintainable.
Cause Title: Kirti v. Renu Anand (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2370-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. N. K. Kantawala, Adv. A. M. Nair
Respondent: Adv. K. K. Bhuchar, Adv. Atul Bhuchar
