Dharambir Bhasin Vs Maintenance Tribunal Senior Citizen Sub Division,Rohtak and Others

Mr. Vibhor Bansal and Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocates put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.3 & 4 and has filed his power of attorney. The same is taken on record.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order 03.04.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2, which was partly allowed and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also partly allowed vide order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-7).

¶15

Succinctly stated, the petitioner filed an application under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak, seeking protection of his life and property and return of his household belongings. Vide order RITIKA 2026.07.13 17:11I attest to the accuracy anddated 03.04.2024, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No. 12936 of 2026 -2-

¶17

respondents No. 3 and 4 to return the household articles, not to harass the petitioner, and directed the SHO, Civil Lines, Rohtak, to ensure compliance and provide necessary protection. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal. By order dated 06.02.2026, the Appellate Tribunal held that the petitioner, being a senior citizen, may reside at any place of his choice, and directed respondents No. 3 and 4 to pay ₹5,000/- each per month (total ₹10,000/-) towards his rent. Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Haryana Government’s notification dated 17.11.2016, prescribing the composition of the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, to submit that the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 suffers from illegality, having been passed coram non judice . It is submitted that under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate acting as their respective Chairmen. In the present case, however, the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 was passed without the presence of the required three-member Bench. Therefore, the said order was rendered without the mandated coram, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment dated 26.10.2016 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18784 of 2015, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:

¶19

“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State

¶20

RITIKA 2026.07.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No. 12936 of 2026 -3-

¶22

Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and thus the present writ petition is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal constituted as per notification dated 10.12.2012 to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by passing a reasoned order. ”

¶23

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4 do not dispute that the impugned orders dated 03.04.2024 is vitiated as it was passed coram non judice .

¶24

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the order dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure P-6) was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and lawful coram prescribed in the notification dated 17.11.2016. Consequently, the same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.

¶25

Further, since the Appellate Tribunal overlooked the aforesaid infirmity that the order dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure P-6) was vitiated having been passed coram non judice , and proceeded to allow the appeal, the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 (Anneuxre P-7) is also unsustainable and deserves interference.

¶26

Accordingly, the orders dated 03.04.2024 and 06.02.2026, RITIKA 2026.07.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy andpassed respectively by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CWP No. 12936 of 2026 -4-

¶28

are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. The parties shall cause appearance before the Maintenance Tribunal on 19.08.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.

¶29

Disposed of accordingly.

¶30

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

¶31

disposed of.

¶32

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 08, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶33

RITIKA 2026.07.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Dharambir Bhasin v. Maintenance Tribunal Senior Citizen Sub Division,Rohtak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharambir Bhasin v. Maintenance Tribunal Senior Citizen Sub Division,Rohtak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sucha Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Another

Surinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Shashi Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Executive Engineer, Samalkha Water Servi Vs Jaibir Singh and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Principal District Institute Education Training Madina(Diet) District Rohtak and Others

Mohinder Kaur Vs Designated Authority Cum Sdo(Civil) and Others