The Punjab and Haryana High Court has invalidated an appellate order passed by a single District Magistrate, holding that such an order is void ab initio for being rendered by a tribunal lacking the statutorily mandated composition. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural compliance in quasi-judicial forums is not optional but jurisdictional.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, two senior citizens, challenged the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehabad, affirming a prior order dated 18.01.2023 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The dispute arose under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, concerning claims for maintenance against their children. The petitioners appealed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order to the Appellate Tribunal, which was heard and decided solely by the District Magistrate.
Key Facts
- The petitioners filed a maintenance application before the Maintenance Tribunal, Fatehabad, constituted under the Act.
- The Maintenance Tribunal, chaired by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and comprising two non-official members, passed an order on 18.01.2023.
- The petitioners filed an appeal against this order before the Appellate Tribunal, Fatehabad.
- The Appellate Tribunal, as per statutory notification, was required to comprise three members: the District Magistrate as Chairman, and two non-official members.
- The impugned order dated 01.05.2024 was signed only by the District Magistrate, with no indication of participation by the two non-official members.
- The notification No. 1041-SW(4)-2020 dated 08.12.2020, issued under Section 15 of the Act, explicitly mandated a three-member composition for the Appellate Tribunal.
Procedural History
- 18.01.2023: Maintenance Tribunal, Fatehabad, passed an order on the maintenance application.
- 01.05.2024: Appellate Tribunal, Fatehabad, passed an order affirming the Tribunal’s decision, signed only by the District Magistrate.
- 20.12.2024: Writ Petition (CWP-30953-2025) filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order dated 01.05.2024.
- 20.04.2026: Hearing before Justice Kuldeep Tiwari.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that the Appellate Tribunal’s order was void because it was passed by a single authority, contrary to the mandatory three-member structure prescribed by Notification No. 1041-SW(4)-2020. They contended that the absence of the two non-official members rendered the tribunal coram non judice.
Respondents: The District Magistrate and State did not contest the composition defect. However, Respondent No. 3, through counsel, conceded that the order suffered from coram non judice.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 01.05.2024 and a direction for the Appellate Tribunal to re-adjudicate the appeal before a constitutionally and statutorily compliant bench.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, consisting only of the District Magistrate without the two mandatory non-official members, is valid or void for being coram non judice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Notification No. 1041-SW(4)-2020 dated 08.12.2020, which explicitly mandated that the Appellate Tribunal at the district level must comprise three members: the District Magistrate as Chairman, and two non-official members. They cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Rajendra Kumar v. State of Punjab to argue that statutory mandates regarding tribunal composition are jurisdictional and not directory. Failure to constitute the tribunal as prescribed renders any order a nullity.
For the Respondent
The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 did not dispute the petitioners’ submission. He fairly conceded that the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 was passed without the presence or participation of the two non-official members and therefore suffered from coram non judice. The State did not file a counter-affidavit challenging the legal position.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 15 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which empowers the State Government to constitute Appellate Tribunals and prescribe their composition. The notification dated 08.12.2020, issued under this power, was clear, unambiguous, and binding.
"The Appellate Tribunal, Fatehabad... shall comprise: 1. Deputy Commissioner as Chairman, 2. Sh. Vinod Tayal (Social Worker), 3. Sh. Parveen Jindal (Advocate)."
The Court emphasized that the presence of two non-official members is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive requirement designed to ensure balanced, informed, and socially grounded adjudication. The absence of these members means the tribunal was never properly constituted.
The Court held that a tribunal acting without the required composition is coram non judice - a tribunal not legally qualified to hear the matter. Such an order is not merely irregular but void. The Court distinguished this from procedural lapses that may be cured; here, the defect went to the very foundation of jurisdiction.
The Court further noted that the concession by Respondent No. 3’s counsel, while not binding, reinforced the legal position. The State’s silence and lack of justification for deviation from the notification further supported the petitioners’ case.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court set aside the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Fatehabad, as void for being coram non judice. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication by a constitutionally compliant bench comprising the District Magistrate as Chairman and the two designated non-official members. Both parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 04.05.2026 at 11:00 AM.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Tribunal Composition Is Jurisdictional
- Practitioners must verify the statutory composition of quasi-judicial tribunals before filing appeals or challenging orders.
- Any order passed by a tribunal lacking mandatory members is void and can be challenged at any stage, even in writ proceedings.
Notification Overrides Customary Practice
- Even if tribunals have historically operated with fewer members, statutory notifications prevail.
- Courts will not validate orders based on past practice if the law prescribes a specific structure.
Concession by Opposing Counsel Is Significant
- An admission by the respondent’s counsel on a jurisdictional defect can expedite relief, but courts will still independently examine the legal position.
- Practitioners should always cite the exact notification or rule that mandates composition, not merely argue general principles.
