CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9758 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.07.2009
Manjit Singh ..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Petitioner in person
Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for Union of India
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana
Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab
*****
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a
mandamus directing the Government of India to ensure that all the
State Governments and Local Authorities implement Section 43 of The
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) in letter and spirit
including allotment of dwelling units constructed under various
CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [2]
Housing Schemes. A mandamus directing the respondents to calculate
the backlog of dwelling units and to offer the same for allotment to the
disabled persons has also been prayed for.
When the matter came up for hearing on 17.09.2008, the
Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, who was also
present in Court on that date, pointed out that a writ petition involving
similar issues as those raised for determination in the present writ
petition was pending before the Supreme Court for hearing. The
hearing of the present writ petition was, therefore, deferred till disposal
of the said petition by the Apex Court. The petitioner who appeared in
person today points out that Writ Petition No. 576 of 2004 pending
before the Supreme Court has been finally disposed off by an order
dated 04.03.2009. A copy of the said order has been placed on record
by the petitioner alongwith CM No. 7402 of 2009. From a reading of
the said order, it is evident that the Supreme Court has directed all the
State Governments and Local Authorities to grant preferential treatment
to the disabled persons and to allot land at concessional rates whenever
such Governments or Local Authorities make allotment for the
purposes indicated in Section 43 of the Act. The Apex Court has,
however, left the percentage of reservation for such allotment to the
discretion of the State Governments and Local Authorities. It is also
evident from the order that the Court has directed the Government to
appoint a Chief Commissioner to look into the complaints of persons
with disabilities in terms of Section 62 of the Act. The State
Governments have also been asked to appoint Commissioners in terms
of Section 60 of the Act to enable anyone aggrieved of refusal of any
CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [3]
benefit to him/her to approach the Commissioner with a complaint for
appropriate action against the Authorities. The following two passages
appearing in the order passed by the Supreme Court are apposite:-
” Under the above circumstances, we
direct that whenever the State Governments or Local
Authorities allot land for various purposes indicated
in Section 43 of the Act and various items indicated
in Section 43, preferential treatment be given to the
disabled persons and the land shall be given at
concessional rate. The percentage of reservation may
be left to the discretion of the State
Governments/Local Authorities. However, total
percentage of disabled persons shall be taken into
account while deciding the percentage. The Act has
also been provided for appointment of Chief
Commissioner to look after the complaints of person
with disabilities. Section 62 enables the
Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to
matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons
with disabilities.We had already directed various State
Governments to appoint Chief Commissioner as well
as Commissioner and if any person feel that the State
Governments/Local Authorities are not extending the
benefits to the persons who are entitled to get such
benefits under Section 43 of the Act, he would be at
liberty to make complaint to the appropriate
authorities as envisaged under the provisions of the
Act.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."The petitioner submits that he has already approached the
Chief Commissioner at Delhi with a complaint regarding violation of
CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [4]the provisions of the Act by the Chandigarh Housing Board, in which
regard, the Chief Commissioner has sent a communication dated
18.05.2009 to the Chairman of the Board asking the latter to ensure
compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and grant the
benefits due to the handicapped persons under the Act and the Scheme
as formulated. The petitioner submits that the Chairman of the Board
has not responded to the said communication so far. It was also urged
that the State Governments have not yet appointed Commissioners in
terms of Section 60 of the Act which reads as under:-
” 60. Appointment of Commissioners
for persons with disabilities:-(1) Every Statement
Government may, by notification appoint a
Commissioner for persons with disabilities for the
purposes of this Act.2) A person shall not be qualified for
appointment as a Commissioner unless he has special
knowledge or practical experience in respect of
matters relating to rehabilitation.3) The salary and allowances payable to
and other terms and conditions of service (including
pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits) of the
Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed by
the State Government.4) The State Government shall determine
the nature and categories of officers and other
employees required to assist the Commissioner in the
discharge of his functions and provide the
Commissioner with such officers and other
employees as it thinks fit.5) The officers and employees provided to
the Commissioner shall discharge their functions
under the general superintendence of the
CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [5]Commissioner.
6) The salaries and allowances and other
conditions of service of officers and employees
provided to the Commissioner shall be such as may
be prescribed by the State Government.”
The controversy regarding grant or refusal of the benefits
due to the eligible persons under the Act is squarely covered by the
directions issued by the Supreme Court in the writ petition mentioned
above. There is in that view no room for making any further direction
in that regard. In so far as the specific complaint made by the petitioner
before the Chief Commissioner is concerned, we do not consider it
necessary to express any opinion on the merits thereof in the present
proceedings at this stage. Since the matter has been taken up with the
Chief Commissioner and since the Chief Commissioner is seized of the
same, we hope and trust that the Chairman of the Chandigarh Housing
Board would suitably respond to the request made by the petitioner and
pass appropriate orders on the subject in accordance with law
expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of six months from
today.
As regards the appointment of Commissioners by the State
Governments, the direction issued by the Supreme Court does not
appear to have been carried out by the Governments of Punjab and
Haryana. M/S Khosla and Randhir Singh appearing on their behalf
submit that the Governments would look into the matter in the right
earnest and take appropriate steps in compliance with the said direction
as also the provisions of the Act within a reasonable period so that
those aggrieved of any denial of benefit under the Act can approach the
CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [6]
Commissioners appointed by the Governments for appropriate redress.
That statement is recorded and the writ petition disposed of with the
observation that the needful shall be done by the State Governments
without any further loss of time.
A copy of the order shall be given dasti to M/S Khosla and
Randhir Singh for compliance under the signature of the Bench
Secretary. Pending applications are also disposed off in terms of the
above order.
(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
16.07.2009
‘ravinder’