RAHUL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Shishir Chandra, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

(2.) Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh,learned Chief Standing Counsel- III raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative and statutory remedy of appeal under Sec. 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007). He relied on a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar and Another versus State of U.P. and 3 others dtd. 23/4/2019 passed in Writ C No.11295 of 2019, which has been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the remedy provided under Sec. 16 is available only to the senior citizen or parents and that too only in regard to order of maintenance and no remedy is provided against the order of eviction.

(3.) Sec. 16 of the Act of 2007 provides that any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore the appeal has been provided against the order passed by the Tribunal and it has not been specified that it is only against the order of maintenance.