Meena Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a septuagenarian senior citizen, assails the order dated 29.11.2024, whereby the respondent No.3- Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, has allowed the statutory appeal filed by the respondent No.4, and set aside the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.2- Maintenance Tribunal. Further, the Appellate Tribunal has restored the transfer deed in question and directed the respondent No.4 to pay maintenance in the sum of ₹10,000/- per month to the petitioner. 2. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone. It is submitted that, in view of the Punjab Government Notification bearing No. 8/10/2008-8SS/542 dated 15.07.2008, and in

¶14

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.01.29 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

2

¶16

CWP-34919-2024 (O&M)

¶17

exercise of powers conferred under Sections 7(1)&(2) and 15(1)&(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), the Governor of Punjab constituted the Maintenance Tribunals/Appellate Tribunals. Their jurisdictions for the implementation of the Act of 2007 are as under:-

¶18

Sr. No.	Name of the Tribunal	Jurisdiction	Presiding Officer of the Tribunal
1.	Maintenance Tribunal	Sub Division of the District concerned	Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned
2.	Appellate Tribunal	District concerned	District Magistrate of the area concerned

¶19

Consequently, it is submitted that since the impugned order

¶20

has not been passed by the statutory authority, i.e. District Magistrate, rather has been passed by an authority exercising sub-delegated powers, i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, it deserves to be set aside.

¶21

This Court posed a specific query to learned State counsel as to whether, under the statutory provisions, the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals are competent to sub-delegate the quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute. Learned State counsel has fairly conceded that such functions and powers cannot be sub-delegated.

¶22

Moreover, learned State counsel has furnished a copy of the instructions dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Directorate Social Security and Women & Child Development, Punjab, wherethrough it has been categorically clarified to all the concerned authorities that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted

¶23

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.01.29 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP-34919-2024 (O&M) 3

¶25

under the Act of 2007 are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasijudicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted hereunder:-

¶26

“To

¶27

All District Magistrates/Presiding Officers,

¶28

Appellate Tribunal Constituted under Sections 15(1) & 15(2) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶29

No. P-3(SS)/2025/82189

¶30

Dated, Chandigarh 27-10-2025

¶31

Sub: Implementation of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 26.09.2025 in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others.

¶32

In continuation of this Department's Notification No. 8/10/2008-8SS/798 dated 27th August 2008, (Flag-A) whereby the District Magistrates were designated as Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, attention is invited to the recent directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others decided on 26.09.2025. (Flag-B)

¶33

2. The Hon'ble Court has categorically clarified that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the said Act are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasi-judicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence.

¶34

3. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Office of the Worthy Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, vide letter No.OSD(L)/CS/2025/64708997 dated 09.10.2025, (Flag-C) has directed that the above order be circulated to all concerned authorities for meticulous compliance.(Copy enclosed along with Hon'ble Court orders).

¶35

4. It is, therefore, requested to ensure strict and prompt

¶36

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.01.29 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶37

CWP-34919-2024 (O&M)

¶38

4

¶39

compliance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Chief Secretary's Office. It may further be ensured that a copy of these orders is circulated to all Sub-Divisional Magistrates under your jurisdiction for necessary action and adherence.

¶40

5. Non-compliance may attract adverse observations from the Hon'ble Court; therefore, the matter may be treated as Top Priority.

¶41

Encls. As above.”

¶42

In view of the above, the impugned order does not pass the test of legality and requires interference of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, for fresh adjudication in accordance with Section 16 of the Act of 2007. Both the parties are directed to cause appearance before the District Magistratecum-Appellate Tribunal on 17.02.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter preferably within eight weeks, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶43

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Pending application(s) also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(KULDEEP TIWARI) January 28, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶46

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.01.29 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Meena Chopra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Chopra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Jagdish Singh Vs the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shruti Vs State of Haryana through Chief Secretary

Seema Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs the Presiding Officer and Another

Prem Wati Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bathinda, etc.