MAYA DEVI W/O ARUN KUMAR v. VISHWESHWAR DAYAL S/O MANIKRAM, Rajasthan High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CW/11941/2021

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Judges

Ganesh Ram Meena

Acts

ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Section 19 of the 1986 Act.
section 227 of the Constitution of India
Section 23 of the Maintenance Act, 2007
Section 7 of the Maintenance Act, 2007

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This batch of writ petitions was filed by petitioners/non-applicants under Section 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 ("the Act of 2007") by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act. The petitions concern applications for maintenance filed under Section 5 of the Act. Some writ petitions also challenge orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 15 of the Act on appeals filed under Section 16, which were dismissed as not maintainable.

For illustration, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11941/2021 (Maya Devi Vs. Vishweshwar Dayal & Anr.), the respondents/applicants filed an application under the Act seeking to dispossess the petitioner Maya Devi from their residential house. The respondents alleged assault by the petitioner and lodged FIRs. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the respondents' application and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the house. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged this order by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Other writ petitions similarly challenge orders of the Maintenance Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal concerning maintenance applications under the Act of 2007.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Act of 2007 when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Act is available.
Whether the remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Act is available only to senior citizens and parents or also to children and relatives aggrieved by the Maintenance Tribunal's orders.
Interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 regarding the right of appeal by all aggrieved parties including children and relatives, despite the omission of explicit mention in the provision.
Whether the Maintenance Tribunal can order eviction of a person in possession of the property of a senior citizen by birth or marriage under the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Section 16 of the Act permits only senior citizens or parents to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the Maintenance Tribunal's order.
Therefore, writ petitions challenging orders of the Maintenance Tribunal are maintainable as children and relatives do not have a statutory remedy of appeal.

Respondents' Arguments

Children and relatives also have the right to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act against orders of the Maintenance Tribunal, similar to parents and senior citizens.
Writ petitions are not maintainable because an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 16 exists for all aggrieved persons, including children and relatives.
Reliance was placed on various judicial precedents supporting this interpretation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Paramjit Kumar Saroya Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2014, Punjab & Haryana 121	Section 16(1) of the Act must be read to provide the right of appeal to all affected parties including children and relatives despite omission in wording.	The Court adopted purposive interpretation to hold that the right of appeal is conferred on both sides (senior citizens/parents and children/relatives) as a case of accidental omission.
Akhilesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court)	Confirmed the view that appeal under Section 16 is maintainable by both parties to avoid denial of remedy to children and relatives.	The Court agreed with Punjab & Haryana High Court and emphasized equality of remedy for all aggrieved parties.
Balamurugan vs. Rukmani (Madras High Court)	Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable by both aggrieved parties, including children and relatives.	The Court agreed that children or dependents against whom orders are passed have a right to file appeal.
Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87	Where words appear accidentally omitted, courts may supply them by implication to give meaningful effect to the statute.	The Court applied this principle to read the right of appeal for children and relatives into Section 16(1) of the Act.
Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 337	High Courts should not entertain writ petitions if effective alternative statutory remedy is available.	The Court relied on this principle to dismiss writ petitions where statutory appeal remedy existed.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261	High Courts have power under Article 226 but should not entertain writ petitions ignoring statutory remedies.	The Court emphasized respect for statutory forums and alternative remedies.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the statutory provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially Sections 2 (definitions), 4 (maintenance), 5 (application for maintenance), 9 (order for maintenance), 15 (constitution of Appellate Tribunal), and 16 (appeals). The Court noted that while Section 16(1) explicitly provides the right of appeal to senior citizens or parents, it does not mention children or relatives.

However, through purposive and harmonious interpretation, supported by judicial precedents, the Court held that the omission of children and relatives in Section 16(1) is an accidental omission (casus omissus) and not a conscious exclusion. The Court relied on the principle that no provision of a statute should be rendered superfluous or meaningless and that the remedy of appeal must be available to all aggrieved parties, including children and relatives, to avoid discrimination and frustration of the appeal mechanism.

The Court further observed that if children and relatives were denied the right of appeal, it would lead to inconsistent remedies where senior citizens or parents could appeal but other aggrieved parties could only invoke writ jurisdiction, which is not the legislative intent.

The Court also analyzed relevant Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when effective alternative statutory remedies exist and that words may be read into statutes by implication to give effect to legislative intent.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the right of appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act is available to all aggrieved parties including children and relatives.

Regarding the writ petitions challenging dismissal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal as not maintainable, the Court set aside those orders and directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing opportunity of hearing.

The Court also noted a pending reference before the Division Bench on whether the Maintenance Tribunal can order eviction of a person in possession of the property of a senior citizen by birth or marriage under Section 23 of the Act.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The Court disposed of all the writ petitions with the direction that petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Petitioners are granted liberty to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal within four weeks. If such appeals are filed, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider them on merits and dispose of them expeditiously, not later than three months from filing.

Interim orders granted by this Court shall continue until the filing of appeals or for four weeks from the date of this order, whichever is earlier.

The Court set aside orders dismissing appeals for non-maintainability and directed fresh adjudication after hearing.

No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Act and the maintainability of writ petitions in presence of alternative statutory remedies.

The Court also urged the Union of India to issue necessary orders, circulars, or amendments to clarify and align the statutory provisions with the judicial interpretation regarding the remedy of appeal available to children and relatives.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

MAYA DEVI W/O ARUN KUMAR v. VISHWESHWAR DAYAL S/O MANIKRAM

[2023/RJJP/008314]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11941/2021 Maya Devi W/o Arun Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhamarwasi (Mohanpura), Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Vishweshwar Dayal S/o Manikram, R/o Bhamarwasi (Mohanpura), Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Sampat Devi W/o Vishweshar Dayal, R/o Bhamarwasi (Mohanpura), Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1012/2022

1. Suresh Kothiwal Son Of Shri Nand Lal Kothiwal (Son), Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

2. Smt. Sunita Devi Wife Of Shri Suresh Kothiwal (Sons Wife), Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

3. Lokesh Kothiwal Son Of Shri Suresh Kothiwal (Grand Son), Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

4. Himanshu Kothiwal Son Of Shri Suresh Kothiwal (Grand Son), Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

5. Smt. Sita Devi Wife Of Late Shri Kunj Bihari Kothiwal (Sons Wife), Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

6. Dilip Kothiwal Son Of Late Shri Kunj Bihari Kothiwal (Grand Son), Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

7. Sunny Chhipa Son Of Late Shri Kunj Bihari Kothiwal (Grand Son), Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohro Ka Mohalla, Sanganer, Police Station Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioners

Versus

Nand Lal Kothiwal Son Of Late Shri Ramchandra Kothiwal, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of 4/32, Radha Ballabh Marg, Boharon Ka Mohalla, Sanger, Police Station Malpura Gate, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2012

Bajranglal Sharma Son Of Late Shri Meghraj Sharma, aged 45 years, Ward No. 8 Shrimadhopur, District Sikar Raj. ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Rudi Devi Wife Of Late Shri Meghraj Sharma, Ward No. 8 Shrimadhopur, District Sikar Raj..

2. Sub Division Officer, Shri Madhopur, Sikar. ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10689/2012 Lal Chand Kumawat Son Of Shri Radheshyam Kumawat, H.No. 9, Richa Vihar, 4C Scheme, Lohamandi, Behind Shiv Mandir, Manchawa, Jaipur Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Radheyshyam Son Of Shri Panna Lal Kumawat, Bhopakal Ki Dhani, Nindar, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur

2. Rajendra Kumawat Son Shri Radheshyam Kumawat, Bhopakal Ki Dhani, Nindar, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur

3. Sub Division Magistrate, Amer, District Jaipur ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8469/2014

1. Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Vishambhar Dayal Sharma

2. Smt. Priya @ Pappi, W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

3. Kalpana D/o Late Shri Vishambhar Dayal Sharma, All

Residents Of Plot No. P-32, Madhuban Colony, Kisan Marg, Jaipur

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Shri Vishambhar Dayal Sharma, Plot No. P-32, Madhuban Colony, Kisan Marg, Jaipur

2. Aman Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Vishambhar Dayal Sharma, Plot No. P-32, Madhuban Colony, Kisan Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8551/2014

1. Nand Kishore Dholiwal s/o Shri Bhanwarlal, aged 31 years, resident of Plot No.25, Girdharipura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. Smt. Meenakshi w/o Nand Kishore Dholiwal, aged 30 years, resident of Plot No.25, Girdharipura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Bhanwarlal s/o Shri Mohanlal, aged 62 years, resident of Press Ki Thadi, Shiv Mandir, Ramleela Maidan, Sector No.4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. At present Girdharipura, Heerapura, Ward No.3, Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. The Court of Maintenance & Welfare Tribunal & Sub Divisional Magistrate (South), Jaipur City, Jaipur

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6314/2016

Rajendra Puri S/o Shri Kailash Puri, aged 39 years, Ruckmani Nagar, Vijay Pura Road, Purani Chungi, Agra Road, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner

Versus

Kailash Puri Goswami S/o Late Shri Mahadev Puri Amarnath Ki Bagichi, Janta Colony, Ps Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12912/2016

Vijendra Son Of Murari Lal, Gudhachandra Ji, Tehsil Nadoti,

District Karauli Raj. ----Petitioner

Versus

Uganti Devi Wife Of Late Shri Murari Lal, Gudhachandra Ji, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli Raj.

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14607/2016

1. Chitarmal S/o Shri Rameshwarlal 499, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, Hasanpura-C, Opposite Ncb, Jaipur

2. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Chitarmal 499, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, Hasanpura-C, Opposite Ncb, Jaipur

3. Cheepu S/o Shri Chiratmal 499, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, Hasanpura-C, Opposite Ncb, Jaipur

4. Lokesh S/o Shri Chitarmal, 499, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, Hasanpura-C, Opposite Ncb, Jaipur

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Mangli Devi W/o Shri Rameshwarlal 499, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, Hasanpura-C, Opposite Ncb, Jaipur

2. Rameshwarlal S/o Shri Gorilal 499, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, Hasanpura-C, Opposite Ncb, Jaipur ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12631/2017 Girraj Gurjar S/o Shri Johari Lal aged 35 years, R/o House No. 108, Gurjar Ghati Amer Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Johari Lal Son Of Late Shri Chhote Lal aged 70 years R/o House No. 108, Gurjar Ghati Amer Road, Jaipur.

2. Smt. Meethu Devi W/o Shri Johari Lal, aged 68 years, R/o House No. 108, Gurjar Ghati Amer Road, Jaipur, ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/2018

1. Kailash Chand Son Of Shri Kalu Ram, aged 40 years

2. Ranjeeta Son Of Shri Kalu Ram, aged 36 years, Both R/o Atta Ladpura, Tehsil Sikrai, Police Station,

Sikrai, District Dausa Rajasthan. ----Petitioners

Versus

1. The Sub Divisional Officer And Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikrai, District Dausa Rajasthan.

2. Kalu Ram Son Of Puni Ram, aged 78 years

3. Nathi Devi Wife Of Kalu Ram, aged 75 years, Both R/o Atta Ladpura, Tehsil Sikrai, Police Station, Sikrai, District Dausa Rajasthan.

4. Mohan Lal Son Of Kalu Ram, aged 45years

5. Ramphool Son Of Kalu Ram aged 23 years, Both R/o Atta Ladpura, Tehsil Sikari, Police Station, Sikrai, District Dausa Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5774/2018

1. Jaiprakash Thakur S/o Jaikishan Thakur, aged 63 years, R/o 25, Jai Ambey Colony, Civil Lines, Sodala, Jaipur.

2. Jyoti Thakur, W/o Jaiprakash Thakur, aged 53 years R/o 25, Jai Ambey Colony, Civil Lines, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Jaikishan Thakur S/o Keemat Rai Thakur, aged 88 years, R/o 25, Jai Ambey Colony, Civil Lines, Sodala, Jaipur Currently Residing With Vinod Kumar Pahilajani, B-475 Sushantlok-1, Gurugram Haryana.

2. Presiding Officer, Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizen Tribunal And Sub-Divisiona ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9559/2018

Nidhi Kaushik W/o Manu Kaushi And D/o Shri Chandrahas Sharma, aged 31 years, R/o House No. 355, Prem Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

Anil Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Ravindra Nath Sharma, aged 64 years, R/o House No. 355, Prem Nagar, Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17596/2018 Nemi Chand S/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Malakheda Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Hukum Kaur W/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram, R/o Malakheda Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar

2. Mahendra S/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram, R/o Malakheda Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17775/2018 Bhawna Kundwani W/o Shri Ramesh Kundwani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. 31/84/04, Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Kalawati Kundwani W/o Late Shri Chandrapal Kundwani, Aged About 74 Years, R/o House No. 31/84/04, Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur At Present Residing At 42/16/11, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

2. Ramesh Kundwani S/o Late Shri Chandrapal Kundwani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 42/16/11, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

3. Raj Kumar Kundwani S/o Late Shri Chandrapal Kundwani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 31/17/03, Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19212/2018

1. Dinesh Kumar Khedia S/o Mr. Ramkumar Khedia, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 20, Sundar Vatika, Behind Choudhary Petrol Pump, Tonk Road, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur

2. Smt. Sulaxna Pipliwal W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Khedia, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 20, Sundar Vatika, Behind Choudhary Petrol Pump, Tonk Road, Police

Station Sanganer, Jaipur ----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Its Director

2. The District Magistrate, Jaipur

3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (Second), Sanganer, Jaipur

4. Ram Kumar Khedia S/o Shri Birdhi Chand Khedia, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 20, Sundar Vatika, Behind Choudhary Petrol Pump, Tonk Road, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21883/2018

1. Shri Vijay Singh S/o Shri Ghewar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, Beawar Dist. Ajmer

2. Smt. Parwati Devi W/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, Beawar Dist. Ajmer

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Shri Ghewar Singh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Udhay Singh, Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, Beawar Dist. Ajmer

2. Smt. Radha Devi W/o Shri Ghewar Singh, Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, Beawar Dist. Ajmer ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25916/2018

1. Smt. Pramila W/o Shri Ummed Singh, R/o House No. 05, Man Nagar, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Smt. Anita W/o Late Shri Umesh Kumar, R/o House No. 05, Man Nagar, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Mohini Devi W/o Late Shri Sant Kumar, R/o Biram

Ka Bas (Ranjitpura), Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Shri Ummed Singh S/o Late Shri Sant Kumar, R/o Biram Ka Bas (Ranjitpura), Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 836/2019

1. Usha @ Sapna Sharma W/o Satish Kumar Sharma D/o Late Shri Surajmal, Aged About 25 Years, Permanent R/o Village Chandpuri Joshiyo Ki Dhani, Post Narayanpur Thana Narayanpur Tehsil Thanagaji, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan. Temporary Address 64/367, Heerapath, Mansarovar, Jaipur, At Present R/o Village Arjunpura, Post Dhola Via Gathwadi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur

2. Chota @ Deepika Sharma W/o Vishnu Sharma D/o Late Shri Surajmal, Aged About 22 Years, Permanent R/o Village Chandpuri Joshiyo Ki Dhani, Post Narayanpur Thana Narayanpur Tehsil Thanagaji, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan. Temporary Address 64/367, Heerapath, Mansarovar, Jaipur, At Present R/o Village Arjunpura, Post Dhola Via Gathwadi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Ramavtar Sharma S/o Late Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma, R/o Village Arjunpura, Post Dhola Via Gathwadi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur Thana Chandwaji, Dist. Jaipur. At Present R/o Gram Todameena Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur.

2. Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma, R/o Village Arjunpura, Post Dhola Via Gathwadi Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur Thana Chandwaji, Dist. Jaipur. At Present R/o Gram Todameena Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2572/2019

1. Lalaram Jat S/o Shri Ramkishor Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. B-1, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Bambala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Pooran S/o Shri Ramkishor Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o

House No. B-1, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Bambala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Hemraj S/o Shri Ramkishor Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No. B-1, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Bambala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Ramkishor Jat S/o Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 70 Years, R/o House No. B-1, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Bambala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Smt. Kamla W/o Shri Ramkishor Jat, Aged About 68 Years, R/o House No. B-1,krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Bambala, Sanganer, Jaipur, (Raj.)

3. S.D.O. Jaipur II, Sanganer, Jaipur.

4. Omprakash S/o Shri Ramkishor Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. B-1, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Bambala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4060/2019

Anil Kumar Naredi, S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Naredi, Aged About

32 Years, R/o House No 1515, Thatheron Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Sita Devi, W/o Late Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, Aged About

71 Years, R/o House No 1515, Thatheron Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

2. Ashok Kumar Naredi, Son Of Late Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, R/o House No 1515, Thatheron Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

3. Sunita Naredi Wife Of Anil Kumar Naredi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No 1515, Thatheron Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

4. Ramesh Kumar Naredi, S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, R/o House No 1515, Thatheron Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7931/2019 Mohammad Saddik S/o Shri Mohd. Shafik, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No. 683, Lawan Ka Ghair, Khandar Ke Raste Ke Pass, Chowkdi Gangapole, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Sultan Begum W/o Mohd. Shafik, Aged About 65 Years, R/o House No. 683, Lawan Ka Ghair, Khandar Ke Raste Ke Pass, Chowkdi Gangapole, Jaipur.

2. Smt. Fatima Naz @ Shanno, Aged About 65 Years, R/o House No. 683, Lawan Ka Ghair, Khandar Ke Raste Ke Pass, Chowkdi Gangapole, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11496/2019

1. Sunil Kumar Nalawat S/o Late Omprakash Sain, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. C-51, Prem Colony, Surya Nagar, Taron Ki Koot, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

2. Antima W/o Sunil Kumar Nalawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. C-51, Prem Colony, Surya Nagar, Taron Ki Koot, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

Munni Devi W/o Late Shri Omprakash, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot No. C-51, Prem Colony, Surya Nagar, Taron Ki Koot, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13011/2019

Smt. Deepika W/o Shri Manoj @dimple, Resident Of Sikandara Road, Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Makkhan Lal, Resident Of Sikandara Road, Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj)

2. Manoj @dimple S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Resident Of Sikandara Road, Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj) ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13382/2019

1. Ghanshyam S/o Late Shri Prakash Chand, Aged About 48 Years, R/o B-7, Gatore Road, Harijan Basti Brahmpuri, Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur.

2. Vinod S/o Late Shri Prakash Chand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-7, Gatore Road, Harijan Basti Brahmpuri, Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Late Shri Prakash Chand, R/o B-7, Gatore Road, Harijan Basti Brahmpuri, Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21350/2019

1. Smt. Ritu Khandelwal, R/o E-53, Ambabari, Jaipur.

2. Sh. Sudhir Khandelwal S/o Sh. Rambabu Patodiya, R/o E-53, Ambabari, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Sh. Rambabu Patodiya, R/o E-53, Ambabari, Jaipur.

2. Sh. Rambabu Patodiya S/o Sh. Vijay Pal, R/o E-53, Ambabari, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21890/2019 Mohan Jangid S/o Late Ramchand Jangid, r/o Plot No. 9, Vasudevpuri Kalawar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Vimla Devi W/o Late Ramchand Jangid, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Plot No. 9, Vasudevpuri Kalawar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Lokesh Jangid S/o Late Ramchand Jangid, R/o Plot No. 9, Vasudevpuri Kalawar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 518/2020

Radheshyam S/o Shri Ramgopal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o

Village Bislai, Tehsil Digod, District Kota. ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Ramgopal S/o Tejmal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Bislai, Tehsil Digod, District Kota.

2. Rajaram S/o Ramgopal, R/o Village Bislai, Tehsil Digod, District Kota.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2619/2020

1. Abhishek S/o (Late) Shri Mohan Lal Pareek, R/o. B-19 Hansa Nivas, Vishvkarma Colony, Nahari Ka Naka, P.s. Bhatta Basti, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Rajni W/o Shri Abhishek, R/o. B-19 Hansa Nivas, Vishvkarma Colony, Nahari Ka Naka, P.S. Bhatta Basti, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners

Versus

Saroj Devi W/o (Late) Shri Mohan Lal Pareek, Aged About 61 Years, R/o. B-19 Hansa Nivas, Vishvkarma Colony, Nahari Ka Naka, P.s. Bhatta Basti, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12812/2020

1. Naveen Kumar Singh S/o Devnandan Singh, Aged About

46 Years, R/o 69, Sharda Vihar-I, Naya Gaon Road, Bhadana, Kota

2. Smt. Sanju Devi W/o Naveen Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 69, Sharda Vihar-I, Naya Gaon Road, Bhadana, Kota

3. Shivam Singh S/o Naveen Kumar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 69, Sharda Vihar-I, Naya Gaon Road, Bhadana, Kota ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Shri Devnandan Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 69, Sharda Vihar-I, Naya Gaon Road, Bhadana, Kota

2. Devnandan Singh S/o Tanuk Lal Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 69, Sharda Vihar-I, Naya Gaon Road, Bhadana,

Kota ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13730/2020

1. Mohammad Arif Son Of Shri Shamsuddin, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 24, Mansinghpura Vikas Marg, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Smt. Mumtaz Wife Of Mohammad Arif, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 24, Mansinghpura Vikas Marg, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Shamsuddin Son Of Late Shri Ismail Khan, Aged About 73 Years, R/o 24, Mansinghpura Vikas Marg, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Mohammad Iftkhan Son Of Shamsuddin, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 24, Mansinghpura Vikas Marg, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

3. Gulshan Bano Wife Of Shri Akbar Ali D/o Shri Shamsuddin, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Khati Tiba, Makrana, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14495/2020 Smt. Minali Sharma W/o Late Shri Piyush Sharma D/o Shri Jagdish Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Deoli At Present R/o 767, Gopal Ji Ka Mandir, Bariyon Ka Bagh, Gangapol, Subash Chowk, Jaipur, Rajasthan, At Present Posted As Ldc Panchayat Samiti Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

Shyam Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Kanaiya Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vivekanand Colony Deoli, P.s. Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.)

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15054/2020

1. Devi Shankar S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of F-392, Indra Vihar, Kota (Raj.)

2. Laxmi W/o Devi Shankar, F-392, Indra Vihar, Kota (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Mangilal S/o Late Kalulal, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of L-10, Jawahar Nagar, Kota (Raj.)

2. Smt. Nandu Bai W/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of L-10, Jawahar Nagar, Kota (Raj.)

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4084/2021

1. Bhawani Singh Son Of Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 857-859, Sawai Geet House, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur.

2. Dilip Singh Son Of Shri Babu Singh, Resident Of Plot No. 857-859, Sawai Geet House, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur. Presently At 1194-B, Sector-41-B, Chandigarh (Punjab). ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Babu Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Resident Of Plot No. 857-859, Sawai Geet House, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur.

2. Smt. Geeta Kumari Wife Of Shri Babu Singh, Resident Of Plot No. 857-859, Sawai Geet House, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6096/2021

1. Shivraj Singh Chouhan Son Of Shri Gajraj Singh Chouhan, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Amc No. 146/34 - 339/46, Near Beechla Puliya Ajmer

2. Nisha Chouhan Wife Of Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Amc No. 146/34 - 339/46, Near Beechla Puliya Ajmer

3. Jaideep Chouhan Son Of Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Amc No. 146/34 -

339/46, Near Beechla Puliya Ajmer ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ajmer.

2. Gajraj Singh Chouhan Son Of Shri Chander Singh Chouhan, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of 416/15, Beechla Chadar, Ajmer.

3. Shanti Devi Chouhan Wife Of Shri Gajraj Singh Chouhan, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of 416/15, Beechla Chadar, Ajmer.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7361/2021

1. Yogendra Kumar Banshiwal S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Banshiwal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Plot No. A-86, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, P.s. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Yogendra Kumar Banshiwal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot No. A-86, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, P.s. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Banshiwal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Plot No. A-86, Mahesh Nagar,

80 Feet Road, P.s. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Jaiprakash S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Banshiwal, R/o Plot No. A-86, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, P.s. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7712/2021

1. Smt Vidhya Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 11, Roop Nagar, First, Near Arjun Nagar Railway Crossing, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Sapana D/o Babulal Gurjar W/o Shri Govind Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Fatehpura Basa, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Garima D/o Babulal Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o 11, Roop Nagar, First, Near Arjun Nagar Railway Crossing, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Govind Gurjar S/o Shri Babu Lal Gurjar, R/o Fatehpura Basa, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners

Versus

Babulal Gurjar S/o Late Shri Nanag Ram Gurjar, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 11, Roop Nagar, First, Near Arjun Nagar Railway Crossing, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8411/2021

Smt. Nishi Dixit W/o Shri Rajeev Dixit, R/o 6/217, S.f.s. Mansarovar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Vishwanath Dixit S/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Dixit, Aged About 77 Years, R/o 92 Shiv Colony, Harimarg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

2. Rajeev Dixit S/o Shri Vishvanath Dixit, R/o 6/217, S.f.s. Mansarovar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13822/2021

1. Manoj Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25-C, Jagdamba Nagar, Harnathpura, Jhotwara, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Devendra Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25-C, Jagdamba Nagar, Harnathpura, Jhotwara, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Poonam W/o Devendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25-C, Jagdamba Nagar, Harnathpura, Jhotwara, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Meenu @ Chinni W/o Manoj Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25-C, Jagdamba Nagar, Harnathpura, Jhotwara, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Babu Singh Son Of Late Shri Hajari Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Flat No. G-1, Plot No. 91-B, Vinayak Vihar-B, Ravan Gate, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara Jhotwara,

P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur. (Rajasthan).

2. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Babu Singh, Resident Of Flat No. G- 1, Plot No. 91-B, Vinayak Vihar-B, Ravan Gate, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara Jhotwara, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur. (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15361/2021

Sayyad Amirrudin Chisti S/o Shri Sayyad Ajijudin Chisti, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 221/20, Ward No. 5 Dhaka Mention Shorgram Mohhalla, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri Sayyad Ajijudin Chisti, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 221/20, Ward No. 5, Dhaka Mention Shorgram, Mohhalla, Ajmer (Raj.)

2. Anshu Marothiya D/o Deepchand Marothiya, R/o 221/20, Ward No. 5, Dhaka Mention Shorgram, Mohhalla, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2742/2022

1. Rakesh Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur.

2. Smt. Geeta W/o Rakesh Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur.

3. Sanjay Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur.

4. Smt. Guddi W/o Sanjay Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur. ----Petitioners

Versus

1. Narayan Singh S/o Late Hiralal, Aged About 74 Years, R/o 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur.

2. Rajesh Singh S/o Narayan Singh, R/o 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur.

3. Kamlesh W/o Rajesh Singh, R/o 117, Parwatpuri Kacchi Basti, Golimar Garden Ke Piche, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6042/2022

1. Durgesh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About

47 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Old (8 New) Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About

43 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Old (8 New) Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Murari Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Old (8 New) Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Dhanesh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About

49 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Old (8 New) Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6234/2022 Kamaljeet Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh Pooniya, Aged About 54 Years, Presently R/o Plot No. 29, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipura, Jaipur. R/o Opposite Gauras Bhandar, Road No. 1, V.k.i. Area, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Ummed Singh Poonia S/o Late Shri Jailal Lambardar, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Plot No. 29, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipura, jaipur Presently R/o A-45B, Dadhichi Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Sabkor Devi @ Sabhkor Devi W/o Shri Ummed Singh Poonia, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Plot No. 29, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipura, Jaipur. Presently R/o A-45B, Dadhichi Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7469/2022 Smt. Beena Sharma W/o Shri Hemant Kumar D/o Devilal Sharma, R/o Tanaji Nagar, Bhajanganj, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri Devilal Sharma S/o Late Nandram, R/o Ghooghra, Tehsil And District Ajmer.

2. Sub- Divisional Officer, Ajmer. ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7685/2022

1. Mahesh S/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Dhani Khatyawali, Village Achrol, District Jaipur.

2. Mool Chand S/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Dhani Khatyawali, Village Achrol, District Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

Smt Gendi Devi Widow Of Late Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About

69 Years, Resident Of Dhani Khatyawali, Village Achrol, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. Rajasthan. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9087/2022

1. Somesh Singh S/o Shri Umesh Singh, Aged About 37 Years, At Present R/o 123/78, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Gudiya Singh W/o Shri Somesh Singh, Aged About 31 Years, At Present R/o 123/78, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Umesh Singh S/o Late Shri Nathu Singh, R/o 123/78, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Gaya Singh W/o Umesh Singh, R/o 123/78, Agarwal

Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9423/2022

1. Ravi Verma Son Of Shri Gopal Verma, Resident Of Dhani Dhabawali, Village Lampua, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar Rajasthan.

2. Smt. Usha Verma Wife Of Shri Ravi Verma, Resident Of Dhani Dhabawali, Village Lampua, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

Gopal Verma Son Late Shri Bhaguram Verma, Resident Of Dhani Dhabawali, Village Lampua, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11395/2022

1. Rajendra S/o Sitaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Dargah Ke Pas, Ward No.11, Van Vibhag Nake Ke Pas, Kota Road, Sangod, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Rajasthan).

2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sitaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dargah Ke Pas, Ward No.11, Kota Road, Sangod, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Sitaram S/o Shrilal, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Dotipada, Sangod, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Rajasthan)

2. Pana Bai, W/o Sitaram, R/o Dotipada, Sangod, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Rajasthan)

3. Bhairulal S/o Sitaram, R/o Village Gunjara, Tehsil Kanvas, District Kota (Rajasthan)

4. Bajranglal S/o Sitaram, R/o Village Gunjara, Tehsil Kanvas, District Kota (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15044/2022

1. Kamlesh W/o Rajesh Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 117, Parvatpuri, Kachchi Basti, Behind Golimar Garden, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur At Present Resident Of Plot No. 705, Near Pinkcity Restaurant, Gali No. 1,

Rajivpuri, Jaipur.

2. Rajesh Singh S/o Narayan Singh, R/o 117, Parvatpuri, Kachchi Basti, Behind Golimar Garden, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur At Present Resident Of Plot No. 705, Near Pinkcity Restaurant, Gali No. 1, Rajivpuri, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

Narayan Singh S/o Late Heera Lal, Aged About 74 Years, R/o 117, Parvatpuri, Kachchi Basti, Behind Golimar Garden, Amer Road, Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16020/2022

Smt. Suman W/o Shri Akhil, Aged About 35 Years, Plot No. 110 Ganesh Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Radheshyam Jangid, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 110 Ganesh Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jaipur Alternative Address 176 Ganesh Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Akhil S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Jangid, Resident Of Plot No. 110 Ganesh Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yunus Khan, Mr. Vijay Kumar Khandelwal, Mr. Virendra Dave,

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Mr. P.L. Saini,

Mr. J.K. Gupta, Mr. Satyapal Poshwal,

Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma,

Mr. S.N. Meena, Mr. Kuldeep Aswal,

Mr. Ashok Meena, Mr. B.L. Choudhary,

Mr. Umesh Vyas, Mr. Manoj Sharma,

Mr. Abhishek Pareek, Mr. Manish K

Sharma, Mr. Asgar Khan,

Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. Kumud Singh,

Mr. Akshat Tyagi, Mr. Pushpendra

Kumar Panddey, Mr. Saurabh

Bhandari, Mr. P.S. Sirohi,

Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma, Ms.

Rashmi Jain, Mr. Ravi Kant Agarwal,

Mr. R.C. Sharma, Mr. Rajat Ranjan, Mr. Darshan Shree, Mr. Mohd. Umar Farooq, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal, Mr. Ram Amit Sharma, Mr. Ramit Pareek, Mr. Dharmendra Jain, Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sain, Ms. Akanksha Saxena, Mr. Abdul Kalam Kham, Mr. Amil Ali, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Manu Bhargava, Mr. Shashi Kant Saini, Mr. Mamraj Jat, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sodhi, Mr. Govind Sharma, Mr. K.K. Mathur, Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Mr. Anupam Sharma, Mr. T.L. Pandey,

Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Mr. Martand Pratap Singh, Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. P.C. Sharma, Mr. Santosh Choudhary, Mr. Rajesh Kala, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri, Mr. Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Surya Prakash, For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Vaibhav Jeswani, Mr. Devesh Yadav,

Mr. C.S. Sinha, for the Union of Inida, Mr. Asad Sheikh, Mr. Vijendra Yadav, Ms. Sunita Mehla, respondent No.1,

Mr. Sanjay Mehla, for respondent

No.2, Mr. Prahlad Sharma,

Mr. Sourabh Jain, Mr. Deepak

Kothiwal, Mr. P.C. Bhandhari, Mr. B.B. Pareek, Mr. Vikram Singh Shekhwat,

Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj, Mr. J.K. Yogi, Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, AGC, Mr. Arvind

Sharma, Mr. Ravi Bhojak, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Mr.

Padam Singh Gurjar, Mr. Ashish

Agarwal, Mr. Sanjay Rahar, Mr. R.D. Tripathi, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Mr. Abhi Goyal, Mr. M.S. Shekhwat, Mr.

Nishant Sharma, Mr. Kailash

Choudhary, Mr. K.C. Sharma, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Mr. V.S. Agarwal, Mr.

Balram Vashistha, Mr. S.L. Sharma,

Mr. Mohd. Akbar, Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. Anoop Pareek, Ms. Kamla Jain, Mr. D.S. Naruka, Mr. P.S. Naruka, Mr. M.S. Gothwal, Mr. Karnal Singh, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr.

Mohit Pareek, Mr. Arun Sharma, Mr.

G.S. Rathore, Mr. S.S. Hora, Mr. Rishikesh Mahrishi, Mr. Narendra Mewara, Mr. Pushpendra Sharma, Mr. Ravi Saini, Mr. Sanwar Mal, Mr. Suresh Kumar Dhenwal, Mr. Govind Choudhary, Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola, Mr. Ajay Gupta, Mr. Naveen Dhuwan & Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment / Order

Reserved on ::: March 22, 2023 Pronounced on ::: May 01, 2023

REPORTABLE

1. These batch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners/non-applicants under section 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed under section 9 of 'The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007' (for short 'the Act of 2007') by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2007 on an application for maintenance filed under section 5 of the Act of 2007.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.17596/2018 and 14495/2020 have been filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 15 of the Act of 2007 on filing of appeals under section 16 of the Act of 2007, whereby the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals being not maintainable.

3. For ready reference, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11941/2021, Maya Devi Vs. Vishweshwar Dayal & Anr., are being taken into consideration. In this case, the respondents/ applicants namely; Vishweshwar Dayal and Sampat Devi filed an application under the provisions of the Act of 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal with the prayer to dispossess the petitioner/non-applicant Maya Devi from their residential house. It was stated by the respondents/applicants in the application that respondent/applicant No.1- Vishweshwar Dayal is a retired Army person and after his retirement, they constructed a house for their own residence at Village Bhamarwasi (Mohanpura). It was alleged in the application that on 06.02.2021 the petitioner/ non-applicant Maya Devi came with her brother and gave beating to them for which an FIR No.40/2021 was registered at Police Station Baggad, wherein charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. However, both the parties entered into a compromise. Thereafter, petitioner/non-applicant Maya Devi lodged an FIR No.25/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jhunjhunu, against the respondents/ applicants. In such circumstances, the petitioner/non-applicant prayed to dispossess the respondents/applicants from the house, to hand over the possession of the house to her and also prayed

to restrain the respondents/ applicants from entering in her house.

The Maintenance Tribunal issued notices to the petitioner/ non-applicant, who appeared before the Tribunal and submitted an application for dismissing the application for maintenance filed by the respondents/ applicants stating that the respondents/applicants do not come in the definition of Senior Citizens as their age is below 59 years. The Maintenance Tribunal after examining the material available on the record, allowed the application filed by the respondents/applicants vide its order dated 22.09.2021 and ordered to dispossess the petitioner/ applicant from their house and directed the SHO, Police Station Baggad, District Jhunjhunu to get vacated the said plot and hand over the possession of the plot to the respondents/applicants.

Aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, the petitioner/non-applicant has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In other writ petitions also i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.17596/2018 and 14495/2020, challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in appeal either by the children or the relatives against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal.

5. On 14.03.2023 while these batch of writ petitions came up before the Court for arguments, an issue was raised from the respondents side that the writ petition against the order of Maintenance Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 2007 is not maintainable for the reason that a statutory remedy of appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007 is available to the aggrieved person/s including the children and the relatives.

6. Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the provision of section 16 of the Act of 2007 only permits any senior citizen or a parent to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal.

7. Vide order dated 27.02.2023, this Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to serve a copy of this order along-with the copy of SBCWP No.11941/2021, Maya Devi Vs. Vishweshwar Dayal & Anr., in the office of Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General so that he may appear before the Court and may make submissions in regard to the availability of remedy of appeal to the children or other relatives, in case they are aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal because the Act of 2007 is a Central Legislation.

8. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Addl. Solicitor General and the other counsels appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the children and the relatives can also file an appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007 on being aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal as like the remedy of appeal to parents and senior citizens. They also submitted that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007.

In support of their submissions, Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Addl. Solicitor General and other counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16743/2018, Smt. Rekha Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.08.2021;

2. Paramjit Kumar Saroya Vs. The Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 2014, Punjab & Haryana 121, decided by Hon'ble the Apex Court;

3. Writ- C No.11295 of 2019, Akhilesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., decided by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court;

4. Writ Petition No.147056/2020 (GM-RES), Smt. M. Sunitha (Vidyasri Vs. Smt. Shashikala Mugadura & Anr., decided on 20.07.2021 by Single Bench of High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; and

5. Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

9. Considered the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties in regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions and availability of remedy of appeal to the parents and relatives undere section 16 of the Act of 2007.

10. For adjudication of the issue of availability of remedy of appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2017 to the parents and the relatives and also maintainability of the writ petition, certain provisions of the Act of 2007, which are relevant, are reproduced as under:-

"2. Definitions- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) " "

(b) "maintenance" includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment;

(c) " "

(d) "parent" means father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen.

(e) " "

(f) " "

(g) "rel ative" means any legal heir of the children senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death;

(h) " "

(i) " "

(j) "Tribunal" means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Sec.7."

4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens. A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of -

i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;

ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2.

(2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.

(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:

Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property.

5. Application for maintenance- (1) An application for maintenance under section 4, may be made -

(a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or

(b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organisation authorised by him; or

(c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo motu.

Expl anation: For the purposes of this section

"organisation" means any voluntary association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or any other law for the time being in force.

(2) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent and to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct.

(3) On receipt of an application for maintenance under sub-section(1), after giving notice of the application to the children or relative and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry for determining the amount of maintenance.

(4) An application filed under sub-section (2) for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person:

Provided that the Tribunal may extend the said period, once for a maximum period of thirty days in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(5) An application for maintenance under sub- section (1) may be filed against one or more persons:

Provided that such children or relative may implead the other person liable to maintain parent in the application for maintenance.

(6) Where a maintenance order was made against more than one person, the death of one of them does not affect the liability of others to continue paying maintenance.

(7) Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

(8) If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within a period of three months from the date on which it became due."

9. Order for maintenance-(1) If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.

(2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may be ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government which shall not exceed ten thousand rupees per month.

15. Constitution of Appell ate Tribunal- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one Appellate Tribunal for each district to hear the appeal against the order of the Tribunal.

(2) The Appellate Tribunal shall be presided over by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate.

16. Appeals- (1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal alter the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent.

(3) The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred.

(4) The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal) and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal.

(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal Hied against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be final:

Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the parties of being heard in person or through a duly authorised representative.

(6) The Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of the receipt of an appeal.

(7) A copy of every order made under sub-section

(3) shall be sent to both the parties free of cost."

11. In the matter of Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra), the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the provision of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is

valid however- must be read to provide for the right of appeal. In paragraphs 31 and 32, it has been held as under:-

"31. Now coming to the conspectus of the discussion aforesaid, we have no doubt in our mind that we would be faced with the serious consequences of quashing such a provision which deprives the right of one party to the appeal remedy, while conferring it on the other especially in the context of the other provisions of the same Section as well as of the said Act. We have to avoid this. The only way to avoid it is to press into service both the principles of purposive interpretation and casus omissus. The Parliamentary discussions on the other provisions of the said Act do not convey any intent by which there is any intent of the Parliament to create such a differentiation. There is no point in repeating what we have said, but suffice to say that if nothing else, at least to give a meaning to the first proviso of Section 16(1) of the said Act, the only interpretation can be that the right of appeal is conferred on both the sides. It is a case of an accidental omission and not of conscious exclusion. Thus, in order to give a complete effective meaning to the statutory provision, we have to read the words into it, the course of action even suggested in N. Kannadasan's case (supra) in para 55. How can otherwise the proviso to sub section (1) be reconciled with sub section itself. In fact, there would be no need of the proviso which would be made otiose and redundant. It is salutary role of construction of the statute that no provision should be made superfluous. There is no negative

provision in the Act denying the right of appeal to the other parties. The other provisions of the Act and various sub sections discussed aforesaid would show that on the contrary an appeal from both sides is envisaged. Only exception to this course of action is the initial words of sub section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act which need to be supplanted to give a meaning to the intent of the Act, other provisions of the said Act as also other sub sections of the same Section of the said Act. In fact, in Board of Muslim Wakfs Rajasthan's case (supra), even while cautioning supply of casus omissus, it has been stressed in para 29 that the construction which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective must always be avoided and the construction which advances the remedy intended by the statute should be accepted. This is the only way we can have a consistent enactment in the form of whole statute.

32. We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties." In the matter of Akhilesh Kumar & Anr. (supra), the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court also agreed the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Kumar Saroya (Anr.) and observed that if right of an appeal is denied to the aggrieved party, namely, child or children or relatives the appeal clause under the Act, 2007 would be frustrated and tantamount to denying them the similar right of appeal as provided to another party

who is the senior citizens or parents. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this judgment are relevant, which are reproduced as under:-

"8. In a similar controversy the Madras High Court in Balamurugan vs. Rukmani (C.R.P.(PD) (MD)No. 437 of 2015 & M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 decided on, 29 April 2015) in agreement with the view taken in Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) has held that an appeal under section 16 of the Act, 2007 would be maintainable at the behest of both the parties, i.e. at the instance of the aggrieved party for the reason that where the Tribunal decides a case in favour of the senior citizens or parents, the children or dependent or relatives against whom the order is passed and against whom it can be enforced under section 11 of the Act, 2007 would be the aggrieved person and have a right to file an appeal.

9. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) and Balamurugan (supra) because if the right of appeal is denied to the aggrieved party, namely, child or children or relatives the appeal clause under the Act, 2007 would be frustrated and tantamount to denying them the similar right of appeal as provided to another party who is the senior citizens or parents.

10. The Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87) in paragraph no.19 has held as under:

"19. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there, but "where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meanings, it is permissible to supply the words" (Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. (See: Sirajul Haq Khan & Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, [ 1959] SCR 1287 at 1299)" In the matter of Smt. M. Sunitha (Vidyasri), the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, relying upon the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra), observed that the right of appeal under Section 16(1) of the said Act is conferred on both side. Para 12 is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-

"12. In view of the above discussion, the only interpretation can be the right of appeal under Section 16 (1) of the said Act is conferred on both side. It is case of an accidental omission and not of conscious exclusion. Therefore, the impugned order passed under Section 7 of the Act is an appeal under Section 16 of the Act. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Act, the above writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the interim order granted by this Court will be continued till the disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority. The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal not late than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka is directed to communicate this order to all the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. "

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nivedita Sharma (supra) has observed that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Para 11, 21, 26 and

27 of this judgment are relevant, which are reproduced as under:-

"11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

21. In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) 7 SCC 668, this Court observed (SCC p.673, paras 11-12):

"11. The Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should arrive at a conclusion based on reason. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever, brief in support of its conclusion by such a forum, is too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasising. Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Unfortunately we have not been able to find from the impugned order any reasons in support of the conclusion that the claim of the Appellant is 'unrealistic' or 'exaggerated' or 'excessive'. Loss of salary is not the sole factor which was required to be taken into consideration.

12. While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in

the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard- and-fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge."

26. We also find that the High Court has taken cognizance of the statement made on behalf of the counsel for the Petitioners that their clients would challenge Clause (iii) of para 38 of the State Commission's order by filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act and the fact that one of the aggrieved parties, namely, American Express Bank Limited has already filed an appeal questioning paragraph 38(iii) of the order of the State Commission. After having noticed that some of the Petitioners were inclined to avail the remedy of appeal against the particular portion of the order passed by the State Commission, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the miscellaneous petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and directed them to avail remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the 1986 Act. The

appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

27. However, liberty is given to Respondent No. 1 and Ors. to challenge the order of the State Commission by availing alternative remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the 1986 Act. We also direct that if the Respondents or any one of them file(s) an appeal within a period of 60 days from today, then the same shall be entertained by the National Commission and decided on merits. We also give liberty to American Express Bank Limited to amend the memo of appeal for the purpose of challenging the order of the State Commission on other grounds. It will also be open to Respondent No. 1 and Ors. to apply for stay of the order of the State Commission. If any such application is filed, the National Commission shall decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by the observations contained in the impugned order." The Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Rekha Agarwal (supra), agreed to the observations made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra), and held that the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Appellate Tribunal.

12. On consideration of the provisions of the Act of 2007, this Court also finds that in case the children and

relative are precluded from filing an appeal as per the wordings of provision of Section 16 of the Act of 2007, whether the children who are above the age of 60 years and are senior citizens as per definition clause 2(h), can also be deprived of filing an appeal. If the persons other than parents being aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal are not allowed remedy of appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007, but the children and the relatives being senior citizens could file an appeal, then why i.e. children and the relatives who are below 60 years of age be deprived of remedy of appeal. Such bifurcation in the eyes of this Court would tantamount to discrimination.

13. Proviso to Section 16 of the Act of 2007 speaks that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal. The wordings of this proviso clause clearly show the intention of the legislation that the children and the relatives are also provided the remedy of appeal but because of some omissions, the words 'children and relatives' have been left out.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Kalra

v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 87 has held as under:-

"19. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there, but "where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meanings, it is permissible to supply the words" (Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores

v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. (See: Sirajul Haq Khan & Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, [ 1959] SCR 1287 at 1299)"

15. If we go by wording of the Statute, that only the senior citizens or the parents could file an appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Appellate Tribunal, then in a case where a senior citizen or parent is also partly aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, he/she will have to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the children or the relative would invoke the writ jurisdiction.

This cannot be the intention of the legislation that an order of the Maintenance Tribunal should be examined under two legal remedies. To avoid such complications also the right of an appeal is required to be conferred upon all the parties aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal.

16. In the wake of the observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the High Courts and in view of the above discussion, the only interpretation can be that there is a right of appeal under section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 conferred on both side i.e. senior citizens, parents and children or relatives. It is a case of an accidental omission and not of conscious exclusion. It is, therefore, held that the appeal is maintainable under section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 by the children or the relatives also against the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.

17. Since the petitioners have alternative remedy of an appeal under section 16 of the Act of 2007, all the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 16 of the Act of 2007. If any such appeal is filed before the Appellate Tribunal under section 16 of the Act of 2007 within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Tribunal on its merits. It is also observed that if any such appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the interim orders, if any, granted by this Court in exercise of writ

jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners will continue till filing of the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal or for four weeks from today whichever is earlier.

18. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal/s, if so filed expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of filing of the appeal/s.

19. Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that a reference has been made by the Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 on the following legal questions:-

"(a) Whether The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 empowers the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance Act, 2007 to pass an order of eviction of a person who is in possession of the property of such senior citizen by birth or marriage by interpreting Section 23 of the Maintenance Act, 2007 to include possession as transfer with a condition?

(b) Whether the word 'transfer' used in Section 23 of the Maintenance Act, 2007 would include the possession held by birth or marriage and declaration of transfer as void would include eviction also?"

20. It is further submitted by the counsels appearing for the petitioners that the said reference is pending before the Division Bench for adjudication.

The petitioners may raise all the issues which have been taken by them in the writ petition and during the oral arguments including the issue of pendency of reference before the Appellate Tribunal, who shall take into consideration the same while deciding the applications.

21. In the writ petitions challenging the orders of the Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeals either filed by the children or the relatives have been dismissed as being not maintainable, the orders of dismissal of appeals (in SBCWP No. 17596/2018, Nemi Chand Vs. Hukum Kaur & Anr.- the order dated 19.06.2018 passed in Appeal No.12/57/2017 and in SBCWP No. 14495/2020, Smt. Minali Sharma Vs. Shyam Narayan Sharma- the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Court of the District Collector, Tonk, in Appeal No.39/2020) are set aside with the direction to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/appellants.

22. Since the writ petitions have been disposed of, the stay applications and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.

23. Before parting this order, this Court would like to add that since by various pronouncements by various Hon'ble Courts it has been held that the remedy of an appeal under section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is available to all the aggrieved persons including the children and relatives. The Addl. Solicitor General of India Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate also stated before the Court that the remedy of an appeal under section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is available to all the aggrieved persons including the children and relatives but because of non-mentioning in Section 16 of the Act of

2007 that the children and the relatives could also file an appeal, the confusion remains in legal fraternity and the general public which leads them to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal.

24. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Courts and the statement made by learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, this Court expects from the Union of India to take necessary steps for issuing orders, circulars or amendments in consonance with the observations, findings of the Hon'ble Courts and the statement of Addl. Solicitor General of India in regard to the remedy of filing of an appeal to the children and relatives under the provision of Section 16(1) of the Act of

2007.

23. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected case files.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Sharma NK

MAYA DEVI W/O ARUN KUMAR v. VISHWESHWAR DAYAL S/O MANIKRAM

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

MAYA DEVI W/O ARUN KUMAR v. VISHWESHWAR DAYAL S/O MANIKRAM

Comments