IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 20.01.2011 C.W.P.No.12609 of 2010 Gurcharan Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhavan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali) & ors. ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.20664 of 2010 Chamkaur Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhavan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali) & ors. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Ms.Mandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.12609 of 2010. None for the petitioner in CWP No.20664 of 2010 Mr.Jasjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr.H.S.Brar, Advocate for GMADA. Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. *** Ranjan Gogoi, ACJ. (Oral) With the consent of the parties, final order in both the Public Interest Litigations is being passed at this stage keeping in mind the subject- matter of these PILs. The principal direction sought in these writ petitions is in respect of the reservation policy for allotment of houses and C.W.P.No.12609 of 2010 -2- plots in PUDA (Annexure P-5) by extending the same to mentally challenged persons. Though a policy is in force, yet, the same applies only to physically handicapped/visually impaired persons and does not cover the other categories of persons with disabilities within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ' the 1995 Act'). Section 43 of the Act is a part of chapter VII of the 1995 Act, which chapter deals with affirmative action. It clearly stipulates that scheme should be framed in favour of persons with disabilities for preferential allotment of land at concessional rates of :- “(a) house; (b) setting up business; (c ) setting up of special recreation centres; (d) establishment of special schools; (e) establishment of research centres; (f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities.” Disability defined by Section 2(i) of the Act is in the following terms:- “(i) “disability means- (i) blindness; (ii) low vision; (iii) leprosy-cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental illness;” C.W.P.No.12609 of 2010 -3- If the expression “disability” under the Act covers seven categories of persons including persons suffering from mental retardation and mental illness, we do not see how a scheme or a policy framed pursuant to Section 43 of the Act can have a restricted meaning to the said definition. Section 33 of the Act which deals with reservation of posts for only three categories of persons suffering with disabilities is a specific provision dealing with public employment of disabled persons. The provisions contained in the aforesaid Section 33 of the 1995 Act, therefore, have no application to other fields covered by the Act including the field covered by Section 43 of the 1995 Act. We, therefore, direct that the policy in force for providing housing/accommodation/land to disabled persons be suitably expanded to all categories of persons with disabilities as defined by Section 2 (i) of the 1995 Act. However, it is left to the discretion of the State to specify the percentage of reservation for each of the said categories. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these Public Interest Litigations are disposed of. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE January 20, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE