Madras High Court
K.Raju vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2021
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
K.Raju ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Union of India,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
New Delhi.
2. The District Collector/Appellate Tribunal,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Villupuram.
4. Krishnan ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that any aggrieved party to
an order passed under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizen Act, 2007, Act No.56 of 2007, can file an Appeal under
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
Sec.16(1) of the said Act, with reference to the case in Balbir Kaur v.
Presiding Officer-cum-SDM of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior
Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa District, Kurukshetra and others dated
29.06.2015 and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to take the
appeal on file.
For Petitioner : Mrs.P.Veena Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Suresh
for respondent Nos.2 and 3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petition is completely without any basis.
2. A perfectly simple provision lucidly enunciated is sought to
be twisted to imply something that it clearly does not permit.
3. The matter pertains to Section 16 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Sub-section (1)
of such provision permits only any senior citizen or a parent, who is
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
aggrieved by an order of a tribunal passed under such Act, to prefer
an appeal to the appellate tribunal. The first proviso to such
provision adds that merely because an appeal has been filed by a
senior citizen or a parent aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance
allowed would not permit the children or relative who are directed
to pay the maintenance to suspend the payment of the
maintenance as directed. The second proviso enlarges the period of
receiving an appeal upon sufficient cause being indicated. Sub-
section (2) through sub-section (7) of Section 16 of the Act pertain
to the conduct of the appeal and do not reflect anything on who
may prefer an appeal and who may be regarded as a person
aggrieved.
4. Section 16(1) of the said Act of 2007 is quoted:
“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
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
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 after 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.”
5. The words used in the provision are lucid and, by no stretch
of imagination, can such clear words of the statute be read or
understood or interpreted to imply that any class of persons other
than any senior citizen or a parent may be entitled to prefer an
appeal under such provision. The terms “senior citizens” and
“parent” are defined in Section 2 of the Act. The word “Tribunal” is
also defined to mean the Maintenance Tribunal as constituted under
Section 7 of the Act.
6. It is elementary that an appeal is a creature of a statute
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
and no right of appeal inheres in any person unless such right is
expressly conferred by any statute. It is possible for a right of
appeal to be hedged with conditions or even a right of appeal to be
granted to a class of persons and not granted to another. It is the
wisdom of the legislature to decide what classes of persons would
be entitled to the right of appeal and what conditions may be
attached to the exercise of such right and how such right may be
exercised.
7. At the highest, an appellate provision may be assailed as
unreasonable as falling foul of the constitutional principles,
particularly under Article 14 thereof. But merely because a class of
persons has been conferred the right to prefer an appeal while
another class may have not been given such right, ipso facto, would
not make the appellate provision vulnerable to any challenge under
Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the right of appeal that
inheres in a party to the lis at the time of initiation of the lis may
also be subsequently taken away by legislature, the only caveat
being that such a right must be expressly taken away and such
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
right cannot be seen to be extinguished by implication.
8. The petitioner relies on a judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court reported at AIR 2014 P&H 121 (Paramjit Kumar
Saroya v. The Union of India). There is no doubt that such
judgment concludes, upon a reading of Section 16 of the Act, that
any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an
appeal. However, we have not been able persuade ourselves to
concur with the view. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, we
respectfully disagree.
9. When the clear words of a statute do not permit any other
meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of
appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to
discover a right in favour of a class of persons excluded by
necessary implication in the appellate provision. When the words
used in Section 16 of the Act are “Any senior citizen or a parent ...
aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may ... prefer an appeal...” and the
other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
parent in the alternative, there is no room to imagine that others
aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on
the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides.
10. In the light of the above and there being no other issue
involved, W.P.No.29988 of 2019 is dismissed. It is recorded that
the petitioner says that the parties have come to a settlement, but
no conclusive finding needs to be rendered in such regard in the
context of the present lis and also since the private respondents are
not represented.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
W.M.P.No.29889 and 29890 of 2019 are closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
19.02.2021
Index : Yes
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
Union of India,
New Delhi.
2. The District Collector/Appellate Tribunal,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Villupuram.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.P.No.29988 of 2019
19.02.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
