Allahabad High Court
Smt Sudha Tiwari vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 24 February, 2023
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1311 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt Sudha Tiwari Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Bal Mukund,Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Bal Mukund, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 4.
Pursuant to the order dated 14.02.2023, learned counsel for petitioner has produced a copy of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2016').
Sri Pankaj Srivastava submitted that Section 76 of the Act, 2016 provides that in case authority does not accept a recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non-acceptance to the Chief Commissioner within a period of three months, and shall also inform the aggrieved person. In accordance with Section 76 of the Act, 2016, respondent-Bank has written letter dated 05.03.2022 to Chief Commissioner-respondent No. 3, therefore, there is no illegality in the letter impugned. He also pointed out that as per Section 77 of the Act, 2016, Chief Commissioner is having power of Civil Court as vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, in case petitioner is aggrieved, at the most he may approach Chief Commissioner again, which could not be disputed by learned counsel for petitioner.
Under such facts of the case, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach Chief Commissioner in accordance with, if he is aggrieved by the impugned letter.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Sartaj