2026:UHC:331-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No.238 of 2025 08 January, 2026 Brijmohan Singh ---Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT Petitioner relies upon Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 for contending that a State Commissioner for persons with disabilities has to be appointed by State Government having special knowledge or practical knowledge in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation. 2. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to Section 79(1) of said Act and submits that there is no statutory mandate for appointment of State Commissioner and he submits that it is discretionary for State Government whether to appoint or not to appoint such Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Seema Girija Lal and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Others’ Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).29329/2021 for 1 2026:UHC:331-DB contending that Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed State Government to ensure compliance of Section 79 of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. 4. Learned State Counsel by referring page no.50 of writ petition submits that in the list of States which are yet to comply with provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 name of State of Uttarakhand is not mentioned which shows that Hon’ble Supreme Court was satisfied that compliance of Act has been done by State of Uttarakhand. He submits that Additional Secretary Social Welfare Department has been appointed as Ex- Officio Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that charge of Commissioner has to be given to a person having special knowledge on the subject and Additional Secretary cannot be expected to have special knowledge on the subject. He submits that State Government has to keep this aspect in mind while appointing Commissioner. 6. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to make representation to State Government. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to State Government. If petitioner makes representation within 10 days decision thereupon shall be taken within eight weeks thereafter. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.01.2026 SS 2