ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a disabled person. In the writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondents, to the effect that the State may be directed to appoint the State Commissioner, as well as, the Grievance Redressal Mechanism as provided under Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act No.49 of 2016).

(2.) Furthermore under the Act, under Section 23 provides for appointment of Grievance Redresssal Officer to attain the objective as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, wherever there is non compliance of provision under Section 20 of the Act, the petitioner had also sought for providing of Grievance Redressal Forum and appointment of Grievance Redresssal Officer.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite of the fact that the Act has been enforced w.e.f. 27.12.2016, but yet the State has derelicted in appointing the State Commissioner or the Grievance Redressal Body as contemplated under Section 19 read with Section 23 of the Act. Though, the writ petitioner is trying to enforce an action which is contemplated under the Act, which the State was otherwise statutorily required to comply with, but the writ petition lacks any averment to the effect that before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached before the State or Competent Authority for enforcing the provisions under Section 79 read with Section 80 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act No.49 of 2016).