PRITI DHOUNDIAL Vs. TRIBUNAL UNDER MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF THE PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT 2007

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition made under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the Tribunal under Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) IT is submitted by the petitioners that the impugned order was passed on an application or complaint dated 19th October, 2009 alleged to have been made by the President of All India Centre for Development of Education and Environment (ACIDEE) against the petitioners. The petitioners learnt about this order from reports appearing in newspapers on 30th October, 2009 and obtained a copy of the order on that day from the Tribunal. It is stated that although an appeal can be preferred against the order to a Appellate Tribunal, however, there is no Appellate Tribunal in existence so that an appeal could be preferred, moreover, the reliefs being sought by the petitioners are not on merits of the order but on the order being per se illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was patently illegal and the order reflected a grave bias of the Tribunal and the Tribunal had given a go bye to the principles of natural justice and adopted a procedure unknown to law. It is also submitted that the Tribunal had gone much beyond its jurisdiction in passing adverse comments beyond the facts of case. The comments were patently illegal and based on surmises and conjunctures. These comments have been passed against petitioners without there being any material before the Tribunal and without even hearing the petitioners or giving an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. The Tribunal called the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 after summoning them on 28th October, 2009 at 2 p. m. and simply recorded their statement and on 29th october, 2009, the Tribunal passed the impugned order without confronting the petitioners with any adverse statements that might have been made against them by any of the witnesses. The petitioners were not even allowed to go through the statements of the alleged witnesses and were not even allowed to file reply to the complaint.

(3.) THE Tribunal passed an order in respect of a gift deed of property No. L-1/10, hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. By its order, the Tribunal cancelled the gift deed dated 28th June, 2007. Mrs. Lotika Sarkar, who had executed the gift deed had not even appeared before the Tribunal, nor her statement was recorded by the tribunal before passing this order. At the time of entertaining this petition, this court stayed the operation of the order and also made Mrs. Lotika Sarkar a party to the writ petition and a notice was served on Mrs. Lotika Sarkar. Mrs. Lotika Sarkar in her personal capacity had filed a suit for cancellation of the same gift deed before this court. This suit was pending adjudication at the time when this writ petition was preferred. Thus, this writ petition was heard along with the suit.