HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.18659 OF 2001 Dt.5.8.2010 Between: Society for Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Se’DOP) ..Petitioner and General, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.18659 OF 2001 ORDER: It is brought to the notice that Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is no more and no representation is made on his behalf. In normal course, notice is to be issued to the petitioner. But, in the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the prayer in the writ petition has been complied with substantially. It is stated that the provisions of Sections 44, 45 and 46 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act) have been complied with providing facilities in the proposed new stations to cater to the needs of disabled commuters. So far as Section 44 of the Act is concerned, adequate ramps are given at the entry of the station buildings for easy access by wheeled chair users, one seat in the toilet block has been exclusively kept for use of disabled persons and also designed for use of such persons duly following the guidelines given by the Railway Board. Section 45 of the Act pertains to Road traffic. To fulfil Section 46 of the Act, necessary Braille symbols and signages are also planned for the facilities for the disabled people. Accordingly, sufficient measures have been taken by the respondents for the facility of the disabled persons. With regard to the complaint made by the petitioner on 16.11.2000 before the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities, New Delhi, the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities has taken up the case and ensure about the measures that have been taken in respect of amenities for the disabled persons in the proposed Multi Model Suburban Transport System Project planned in Hyderabad – Urban Area and the matter is pending before the 4th respondent. In view of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served, if the writ petition is kept pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition if any of the mandatory provisions of the Act are not complied with. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 5.8.2010 kpr