ORDER
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.
1. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings in Case No. 2584/2002 as without jurisdiction and arbitrary and to quash the show cause notice dated 20.6.2002 at anenxure A and to quash the summons dated 18.7.2003 – annexure E as without jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner is said to be a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act according to the petitioner, the Institute does not receive any funds from the Central Government but, it is partly receiving funds by the State Government and other agencies and that it is not a department of the Central or State Government.
3. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent/Chief Commissioner acting under Section 57 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, has registered a case against the petitioner in No. 2584/2002 and also a show cause notice was issued stating that as per the notification published in the Times of India newspaper dated 19.10.2002 provision for reservation has been made in respect of SC/ST and other backward classes for the post of Assistant Professor but, petitioner had not made reservation for at least 3% of the post for persons with disabilities as per Section 33 of the Act and to show cause for the same. The said action is taken suo motu under Section 59 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to submit his version. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Asst Solicitor General representing the Central Government and also the Addl. Government Advocate representing the State.
5. It is the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the 1st respondent has no authority whatsoever to initiate action as the petitioner is a body registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act in respect of which the Central Government has no power and, neither the Central Government is funding the petitioner nor is having any control over the same. It is the State Government that is partly funding the petitioner and the Institute is also receiving donations and hinds from other agencies and it is also not a department under the State Government.
6. It appears the petitioner is an Institution registered under the Societies Registration Act. In the event it is treated as a State for the purpose of state action, for non-implementation of such program the Central Government may not be having powers. Further the fact remains that the funds are provided by the State to some extent In such circumstance, necessarily the institute has to follow the reservation policy of the State from time to time.
7. At this juncture, the Asst. Solictor General trade his best efforts to convince the court that under Section 59 of the Act, the Central Government has got powers to initiate suo motu action. In my opinion, this argument is a subject matter of interpretation. Under the scheme of the Act, the Central Government has got powers to direct the concerned Governments to implement the scheme. On such implementation and in furtherance of the same, the concerned Appropriate Government have to take action to intimate the persons like the petitioner and, on such intimation and on such further failure, either the Appropriate Government or else, exercising power under Section 59 of the Act, the Central Government suo motu could take action. Such a stage is not warranted since no such material is placed by the Appropriate Government in mis regard. Might be suo motu powers would be available to the 1st respondent under Section 59 of the Act but, that would be subject only to the condition precedent that it shall be the endeavour of the concerned appropriate government to take action in accordance with law and to implement the scheme and in turn, such scheme has to be implemented by the appropriate Government by intimating all those State Agencies to follow the provisions of the Act meticulously and if mere is no such violation by the State Government, question of Central Government taking action suo motu under Section 59 of the Act against the petitioner would not arise.
8. The grievance of the 1st respondent is, the petitioner had not made provision for reservation of 3% of the posts for disabled candidates under the provisions of the Act. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that unless the posts are identified by the concerned authority, the question of petitioner doing the same does not arise. Of course as noted, the action of the 1st respondent to implement the provisions of the Act by itself will not entitle it to have a say in the matter unless it is has got control over the same and especially when the Institute is partly funded by the State, it is the State which is enabled to take action for compliance of the provisions of the Act Further, it is also the duty of the State as well to direct the petitioner for implementation of the Scheme which are meant very much for the interest of the disabled. Chanter III of the Act also provides for the Sate Co-ordinate Committee by virtue of which the State has a stake in this regard and the petitioner necessarily has to furnish list of the posts which are sanctioned or created by it and submit the same to the State/2nd respondent to have a say in the matter regarding identification of posts for the disabled so as to bring itself into the ambit of the Act. Unless the petitioner submits such report to the 2nd respondent who has to identify such posts, the petitioner of course would not be in a position to implement the same. In mat view of the matter, the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent and the case registered by the 1st respondent against the petitioner requires to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the order at annexure A and E are quashed. Since the petitioner Institute is pertly funded by the State, the State will have a control over the same. Without any further delay, the petitioner shall submit the status report as to the number of employees available so as to implement the Scheme and on receipt of such report, it is for the 2nd respondent to identify and reserve 3% of the posts for the disabled candidates and it is for the petitioner to follow the directions without fail.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part