Post for pronouncement of‘the Judgment and Order on 20510/%QQ8 Sdl— » Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A I: 4 § ,g ’ &o\ Wag HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP §03Y ,V ‘ 7 WRIT PETITION N0. 1967 0f2002 PETITIONER : Rakesh Sharma‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Union oflndia & Others. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH : BILASPUR o. 1967 of 2002 ‘ Writ Petition N Rakesh Prasad Shanna, Shanna, aged S/o Late about Shri 27 yrs. Rajendra R/o Purana Police Line House No. 130, Rajendra Nagar Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Petitioner Versus ‘ Respondents 1. Union of India, Through General Manager SE. Railway 14, Stand Road, Kolkata (W.B.) 2. Divisional Bilaspur Railway Ra‘lway Division Manager, Bilaspur SE. (C.G.) Railway 3. Sr. Railway Divisional Bilaspur Commercial Railway Division Manager, Bilaspur SE. r, SE. Railway Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Chief Station Manage Railgway 5. The (C.G.) Commercial lnspector, SE. Bilaspur (C.G.) ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE i WRIT PETITION UNDER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J .) r the petitioner. ‘Shri Shri Parag P. S. Kotecha, Koshy Advocate and Shri f0 N. Naha Roy, Advocates fo respondents. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. ‘ DGEMNT as ORDER JU (Passed on this ggaay of October, 2008) The petitioner, by this petitio mandamus and direc ature of n, seeks a writ in the n tion to the Railway Authorities to restore the S.T.D./P.C.O. to the petitioner and not to allot the same to any other person on, damages to th the platform No.1, and further cost and ( Six Lacs) may be e extent of Rs. 6,00,000/— awarded to the petitioner. shell, are that the South Eastern Railway 2. The brief facts, in nut gm o issued an advertisement (Annexure P /23) dated 8.4.1996 for allotment of S.T.D./P.C. O. booth to physically handicapped The petitioner, being person at various railway stations. applied for allotment of ation. By letter dated 22.11.1996 (Annexure P/24) the petitioner was asked to submit his physically handicapped certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his certificate (Annexure P/24—A). The spot was d by memo dated 3.11.1997 (Annexure P/27) the petitioner was directed to deposit the licence fees, security deposit and cost of agreement. By letter dated 13?1=6.1998 (Annexure P/28) the petltioner was permitted to construct a n the space allotted to the booth in a maximum size of 5’ x 6’ platform No.1. Thus, the petitioner constructed petitioner on the the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth, which was allotted to the petitioner vide memo dated 9 6 1999 (Annexure P/29) The petitioner invested about Rs 1 00 000/ 1n construction of S T D /P C O booth By letter' dated 7.7.1999 (Annexure P/2) the petltloner was directed to execute an agreement with the Railway Administration. Accordingly, the agreement was executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was dir physically handicapped person, S.T.D./P.C.O. booth at Bilaspur Railway St demarcated an ected to shift the S.T.D./P.C‘O. booth from the existing place to the side of New Katni Booking Office vide letter dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure P/4) and another letter (Annexure P/5). The petitioner continued to deposit the licence fees 1t 1s apparent from the application dated 1 1 ‘ (Annexure P/31) and the apphcat1on (Annexure P/32) that as the t shift the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth from the existing on 1.11.2002 at 17.00 hours, the booth was directed to be closed by the railway authorities. 1 2002 petitioner did no place to the side of New Katni booking office, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is a physically handicapped person, he was allotted the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth in accordance with law, he had invested about Rs. 1,00,000/ - in construction of the booth as per the instructions and directions of the railway authorities, the licence to run the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth has not yet been terminated by the railway, thus the petitioner should not be deprived of an opportunity to earn his livelihood by running the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth at the platform No.1 of railway stgtion, further submit that at the place Bilaspur. Mr. Kotecha would earmarked for S.T.D./P.C.O. booth, run by the petitioner, a coffee shop has been constructed. Shri Kotecha, in consultation with the petitioner would lastly submit that the petitioner is ready to shift S.T.D./P.C.O. booth to other place i.e. platforms No. 2 and 3 where no S.T.D./P.é.0. booth is available at present. Shri P. S. Koshy and Shri appearing for the respondents was allotted the S.T.D./P.C.O. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner booth subject to the conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 1.7.1999 (Annexure R/ 1) for a period of three years i.e. 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2002, on depositing a sum of Rs. 6000/— as security and Rs. 1000/— yearly towards land/rent fees. Thereafter, the licence of the petitioner to run the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth was extended upto 30.9.2002 (Annexure R/2). In the month of July, 2002 due to development plans and requirement 0f the place, where the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth was located, the petitioner was directed to shift the booth from the existing place to the side of New Katni booking office vide letters 3) and 24.9.2002 (Annexure R/4). dated 29.8.2002 (Annexure R/ As the petitioner was not abiding by the directions, in the larger public interest as well as the administrative exigency, the petitioner was lastly directed to shift the booth by letter dated 30.9.2002 (Annexure R/S). He further submitted that though the licence of the petitioner had already expired on 30.9.2002 but as the railway authorities inadvertently accepted the licence fees from the petitioner up to October, 2002, the petitioner was permitted to continue in occupation and operation of the s.T.D./P.c.o. booth tin 31.10.2002, by 1etter dated 226162002 (Annexure R/6). As the petitioner again did not comply with the direction the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth was closed and the material of the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth of the petitioner were kept in Railways’ Parcel Office in a safe custody vide memo dated 8.11.2002 (Annexure R/ 7). By notification dated 20. 1 1.2002, the tender for running S.T.D. /P.C.O. booth was invited to which, the petitioner did not make his offer to participate. The booth has been allotted to the highest bidder. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur would submit that the petitioner, being a physically handicapped persons, has already been allotted with the shop No. 16 at Nutan Chowk, Girls School, Sarkanda, 'Bilaspur and the possession was given to the petitioner by the certificate dated 10.2.2006. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. The petitioner may not have any right to get the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth, as he has not participated by offering 6.“, @ tender, suant to the notificatio dated 20.11.002. Priod of the agreement has coe to a d. It is further found that the titioer ws allotted the shop N. 16 at Ntan howk, Girls School, Sarkanda, ilasur by the Mnicpal Corporation, Bilasr to flflll the object of he Persos With Dsabilitie pen a o u C Bp ui pu u T n is (Equal Opprtunities, Protecti of Rihts and Full Participation) Act, 1995. he petitioner, being handicapped, is not in a poitio to fully rticipate and rform all type of activiti to fp‘ain his livelihood. he petioer i on a locomotor, he moves in a specially designe wheel chair. us, this is the iability and esponsibility of each and every person to provide a facility so pe h all the people. In order to achieve this purpose the parliament has enacted The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act, 1995’), wherein the main object of the enactment is as , 4 under: — r that the titioner can have full participation and equality wit (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provisions of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis— a—vis non—disabled persons; ' (iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; to lay down a strategr for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalization of opportunitiesfor persons with disabilities; and (vi) to make special provisions of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream. pur n 2 e m n en o on g T sn pa pe es T tin s d Th l Keeping in View the spirit and intention of the legislature, it is desirable that the railway authorities should consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of a place on platform No. 2 or 3 so that the petitioner can run the S.T.D./P.C.O. booth to earn his livelihood, for full participation in the development of the country. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the railway authorities are directed to consider the application of the petitioner to allot a space on platform No. 2 or 3, as no S.T.D./P.C.O.'%booth is available. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. .r, ”I ) Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge