Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, dealing with a 70-year-old widow’s application under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, took note of repeated non-compliance by the Deputy District Collector and Magistrate with earlier directions to decide the matter within a fixed timeframe. Holding that proceedings under the Act are meant to deliver time-bound relief and cannot remain pending indefinitely, the Court transferred the widow’s pending application to another competent authority and directed that it be decided within four weeks of receipt of the complete record. It also directed the existing authority to hand over the record within one week and issued a show-cause notice for non-compliance, requiring personal appearance on the next date.

The proceedings arose from a grievance raised by a senior citizen widow who had approached the competent Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal seeking maintenance and allied reliefs under the applicable welfare legislation. The application remained pending for an extended period despite service of notice upon the opposite parties and repeated listings for final arguments.

Also Read: Menstrual Health Fundamental Right Under Article 21; Schools Must Provide Free Biodegradable Sanitary Napkins And Hygienic Toilets: Supreme Court

Owing to non-disposal of the application, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, which issued specific directions to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the matter within a stipulated timeframe. Despite such directions being issued on more than one occasion, the application continued to remain undecided.

The petitioner thereafter filed successive miscellaneous applications complaining of non-compliance of the High Court’s earlier orders and sought expeditious adjudication, transfer of the proceedings to another competent authority, and other consequential reliefs. The Court called for explanations from the concerned quasi-judicial officer regarding failure to comply with binding judicial directions. The explanation submitted was placed on record, following which the Court examined the conduct of the officer, the sequence of adjournments, and the continued pendency of the senior citizen’s application.

The Court recorded at the outset that “under the principles of rule of law, a quasi-judicial body is obligated to adhere to judicial directives” and that “disobedience of a Court order amounts to breach of duty and professional misconduct, warranting departmental action by the appointing authority.”

While referring to its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court stated that “under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is vested with the powers of superintendence over the subordinate Courts, Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities of the State” and that “any orders/directions passed by this Court are certainly binding upon him.”

The Court noted that “the explanation furnished by the Presiding Officer fails to assign any reason as to why the earlier two orders passed by this Court have not been complied with in letter and spirit.” It further recorded that “the aforesaid act of the learned Presiding Officer clearly amounts to a deliberate act of non-compliance of the orders/directions which were twice issued by this Court.”

Taking note of repeated adjournments, the Court observed that “it appears that the Presiding Officer is not inclined to decide the pending application and is further not interested in complying with the directions/orders passed by this Court on earlier two occasions.”

The Court reiterated that “no one is above the law” and that “disobedience of the orders passed by the Court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law, on which the entire democracy is based.”

In relation to the statutory scheme, the Court recorded that “the timeline for deciding the complaint is designed for rapid relief” and that “the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal is legally obliged to dispose of these applications strictly in timeline.”

The Court concluded its assessment by observing that “the failure of a quasi-judicial authority to comply with the orders issued by the Court definitely constitutes gross misconduct on his part.”

Also Read: Poverty Cannot Bar Article 21 Liberty: Rajasthan High Court Recalls ₹1 Lakh Deposit Condition, Grants Release To NDPS Convict

The Court directed that “the pending application is transferred from the Court of Deputy District Collector & Magistrate, Jaipur II (Sanganer) to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer-I, Sanganer, Jaipur. The latter shall decide the pending application positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the complete record. The complete record of the instant case shall be handed over within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A show cause notice be issued to the Presiding Officer” and that he “shall remain personally present on the next date fixed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Poonia, Advocate
For the Respondents: Not recorded in the order

Case Title: Kesar Devi v. Guddi Devi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: RJ-JP:2594
Case Number: S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 346/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand