HARI SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS — CWP/23721/2024

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Sep-2024

CNR: PHHC011231862024

Filing Number

CWP/51629/2024

Filing Date

11-Sep-2024

Registration No

CWP/23721/2024

Registration Date

16-Sep-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Coram

Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.72 - MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS/SENIOR CITIZENS ( 764 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARI SINGH

    Adv. Munish Puri

  2. 2.HARI SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

  2. 2.HARI SINGH

  3. 3.DIST MAGISTRATE

  4. 4.SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE PATHANKOT

  5. 5.JASWINDER SINGH

  6. 6.MADHU JAISWAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Kuldeep TiwariView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/23721/2024 Senior citizen Hari Singh challenged the dismissal of his application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, arguing the appellate order dated 30.04.2024 was passed by an unauthorized authority. The High Court held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner lacked statutory authority to pass the appellate order, as only the District Magistrate can preside over appellate tribunals under the Act and cannot sub-delegate quasi-judicial powers. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order (*Delegata Potestas Non Potest Delegari*) and remitted the matter to the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Pathankot for fresh adjudication within four months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/23721/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/23721/2024 Senior citizen Hari Singh challenged the dismissal of his application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, arguing the appellate order dated 30.04.2024 was passed by an unauthorized authority. The High Court held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner lacked statutory authority to pass the appellate order, as only the District Magistrate can preside over appellate tribunals under the Act and cannot sub-delegate quasi-judicial powers. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order (*Delegata Potestas Non Potest Delegari*) and remitted the matter to the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Pathankot for fresh adjudication within four months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case