Senior Citizens Act| Maintenance & Appellate Tribunals Passed Order In Absence Of Statutory Members Coram Non Judice: Punjab & Haryana High Court

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, without the multi-member coram mandated under statutory State notifications, are coram non judice and void ab initio. Justice Kirti Singh, in an order dated November 2, 2026, held that single officers presiding as chairpersons have no jurisdiction to decide cases alone where the governing notification mandates a three-member bench.

Respondent No. 3 instituted an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sonipat, seeking cancellation of a release deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The application was allowed on May 8, 2024, leading to successive rounds of statutory appeals and writ remands before the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal on October 15, 2026. Aggrieved by the adverse findings passed without lawful composition, the petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging both orders.

Whether the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, were rendered coram non judice for want of the three-member coram prescribed under the Haryana Government Notification dated November 17, 2016?

Whether a chairperson acting alone possesses the statutory competence to adjudicate disputes under the Act of 2007 when the relevant constitution notification mandates a multi-member tribunal?

Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, drew attention to the Haryana Government's notification dated November 17, 2016, which governs the composition of Maintenance and Appellate Tribunals across the State. Under the said notification, both tribunals are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner or District Magistrate acting merely as their respective Chairmen.

Adjudication by a single member in place of a multi-member statutory tribunal vitiates the proceedings entirely.

It was demonstrated that both the original order cancelling the release deed and the subsequent appellate order were passed solely by individual officers in complete absence of the second and third statutory members. The petitioner contended that such unilateral adjudication directly flouts the mandatory composition and renders the resulting determinations wholly without jurisdiction.

To fortify the position, the petitioner relied on the Coordinate Bench ruling in CWP No. 18784 of 2015, which established that when the State Government constitutes a three-member tribunal via notification, the chairperson lacks jurisdiction to decide cases single-handedly. In that precedent, the High Court observed:

"District Magistrate may be the Chairman of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority."

Orders passed without lawful coram constitute a complete nullity in the eyes of law.

The State counsel, upon notice, conceded that both impugned determinations were rendered without fulfilling the requisite quorum and conceded that the proceedings were tainted by coram non judice.

Justice Kirti Singh examined the statutory scheme and affirmed that procedural fidelity to the constitution of tribunals is an indispensable prerequisite for the lawful exercise of judicial authority under the Act of 2007. The Court observed that decisions rendered without the statutory coram fundamentally undermine the legislative intent of multi-member collective adjudication.

Finding that both the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Appellate Authority acted in flagrant contravention of the notification dated November 17, 2016, the High Court held that the orders were void and unenforceable in law.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated May 8, 2024, and October 15, 2026, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal respectively. The matter was remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal, Sonipat, for fresh adjudication on merits by a duly constituted bench in strict compliance with the statutory coram.

Date of Decision: November 2, 2026