1 2025:CGHC:18239 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 6 of 2024 1 - Ajay Sharma S/o Santosh Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi Road, House No. Aigb (5), In Front Of Anil Rice Mill, Ward No. 30, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Reena Sharma W/o Ajay Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi Road, House No. Aigb (5), In Front Of Anil Rice Mill, Ward No. 30, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi Sharma W/o Of Santosh Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi Road, House No. Aigb (5), In Front Of Anil Rice Mill, Ward No. 30, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Santosh Sharma S/o Late Bajrang Sharma Aged About 68 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi Road, House No. Aigb (5), In Front Of Anil Rice Mill, Ward No. 30, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vijay Sharma S/o Santosh Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi Road, House No. Aigb (5), In Front Of Anil Rice Mill, Ward No. 30, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Kavita Sharma W/o Vijay Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi Road, House No. Aigb (5), In Front Of Anil Rice Mill, Ward No. 30, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For respective : Ms Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer and respondents Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and set aside the order passed by the District:Collector, Rajnandgaon in appeal No. 2022100190700127/0901/B-121 (Annexure- P/1). 10.2 Any other relief, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.” 2. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Collector alone exercising the power of the Tribunal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) allowed the appeal preferred by respondents No.1 & 2 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. He would further submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. He would contend that in the matter of Rajesh Yadav and another Vs. Shyamlal Yadav, WP (227) No.217 of 2020, it is held that despite notification issued by the State Government regarding the constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, the cases are being dealt with by bureaucrats and no Tribunal has been constituted. He would also submit that the order 3 passed by the lone Authority exercising the power of tribunal was quashed in that case. He would refer to para 23 & 24, which are as under:- “23. From the above discussion, it is quite vivid that despite notification issued by the State Government regarding constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, the cases are being dealt by bureaucrats and no Tribunal has been constituted. The issue goes to the root of the cause. The order passed by only Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the District Jaspur Collector are nullity as both the authorities are exercising powers of the Tribunal defeating the object of the Act. In my opinion, there is no need to discuss and decide the second issue when orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 24. In the result, the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, District Durg in Revenue Case No. 06 A- 74/2018-19 and the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, Durg, District Durg in Misc. Appeal Case No. 13/B-121/Year 2018-19 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, District Durg to decide the case afresh after constitution of the Tribunal in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Act and Notification dated 24.01.2009.” 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. They would submit that respondents No.1& 2/parents approached the Tribunal and an order of maintenance was passed in their favour and against the petitioners. They would further submit that an appeal was preferred by the petitioners as well as respondents -4- No.1 & 2. They would also submit that respondents No.1 & 2 also sought relief of eviction against the petitioners and that was allowed by the learned Collector in the appellate order and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. They would contend that respondents No.1 & 2 were permitted to stay on the ground-floor of the residential house. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Taking into consideration the observations made in the matter of Rajesh Yadav (supra); the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the facts of the present case, the order passed by the Collector alone exercising the power of Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal to decide it afresh after the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2007. 6. The petitioners and respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on the 10th of June, 2025. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha