Delhi High Court: The present Letters Patent Appeal (‘LPA’) was filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the then Lahore High Court, which stood extended to the Delhi High Court, challenging the impugned judgment dated 24-4-2019, whereby the Single Judge set aside the order dated 12-12-2015, passed by Respondent 6, the Maintenance Tribunal (Central District), Delhi (‘the Maintenance Tribunal’). The Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ., and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.*, held that the order dated 12-12-2015 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the orders passed by the tribunals were, however, separately also amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Background
An application was filed by late Satya Rani Chopra before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the Act’) seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated 10-2-2009 (‘the gift deed’), executed by her in favour of Respondents 1 and 3 herein with respect to third floor with roof rights of property at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (‘subject property’). The Maintenance Tribunal by its order dated 12-12-2015, allowed the said application and granted the declaration that the gift deed was null and void for all purposes and further, issued directions to the Sub-Registrar concerned for cancellation of the said gift deed.
The order dated 12-12-2015, was impugned by Respondent 1 by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for setting aside the said order of the Maintenance Tribunal. During the pendency of the writ petition, Satya Rani Chopra expired on 1-4-2017 and the Court recorded that the right to sue survives to Satya’s legal heirs. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge and the order of the Maintenance Tribunal dated 12-12-2015, was set aside. The present LPA was filed by the legal heir of late Satya Rani Chopra. Respondents 1 and 3 have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the intra-court appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and set aside the order dated 12-12-2015 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. The Single Judge while setting aside the order concluded that the jurisdictional averments necessary for invoking Section 23 of the Act and seeking cancellation of the registered gift deed were absent in the original application filed by late Satya Rani Chopra before the Maintenance Tribunal.
The Court also noted that the Single Judge concluded that without the necessary averments, the application could not have been allowed by the Maintenance Tribunal and thus, the Single Judge set aside the order of the Maintenance Tribunal finding the same to be invalid and consequently, the proceedings filed before the Maintenance Tribunal stood quashed.
The Court relied on T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905 (‘T.C. Basappa Case’), wherein the Supreme Court held that “judicial acts are amenable to the writ of certiorari”. The Court also relied on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabinath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 (‘Radhey Shyam Case’), wherein the Supreme Court while referring to T.C. Basappa Case (supra) clarified that the expression ‘judicial acts’ was not meant to refer to judicial orders of the Civil Courts. The Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Case (supra) also held that the judicial orders of the Civil Courts could 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 opined that with the exception of the judicial orders of the civil courts; the orders passed by the tribunals and the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions were all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court held that the order dated 12-12-2015 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that the orders passed by tribunals were, however, separately also amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the aggrieved party, against the order of a tribunal such as the Maintenance Tribunal, could either invoke Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution depending on the relief sought in the petition. The Court opined that “under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, the Maintenance Tribunal is presided over by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate (‘DM’). The appeal against the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal lies before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi as per Section 16 of the Act at the instance of the senior citizen alone. The orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal were, therefore, an exercise of quasi-judicial function by administrative persons”.
The Court opined that the Single Judge passed the impugned judgment setting aside the order of the Maintenance Tribunal was in exercise of his power under Article 226 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus, the Court rejected the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the LPA raised by Respondents 1 and 3 and held that the present appeal was maintainable.
[Kirti v. Renu Anand, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2089, decided on 20-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: N. K. Kantawala, A. M. Nair, Advocates
For the Respondents: K. K. Bhuchar, Atul Bhuchar, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
