1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4559 OF 2008 Vijay Vishnu Kalan ... Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Jamshed Mistry with Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner. Smt. J.S.Pawar, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner’s case is that she is physically handicapped since birth. According to her she has suffered permanent disability. 2. According to the petitioner she has paid token money of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 2 on 26.8.2004 towards purchase of a flat in Spagatti Housing Complex on 7th floor. The petitioner took possession of the said flat on 1.12.2004 and since then she has been residing there. It appears that the petitioner is suffering from Cardiac problem and in view of the permanent disability she is finding it difficult to climb the staircase. According to the petitioner because of the policy of load sheding, the functioning of the elevator of the said building is badly affected. The petitioner, has therefore, filed this petition, inter alia praying that the 2nd respondent may be directed to allot to her a flat on the first floor of any building in Spagatti Housing 2 Colony. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard learned AGP. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs us that the petitioner had made a representation to respondent No.3. The representation is dated 1st November, 2006, however, the 3rd respondent has not taken any decision on the said representation till date. Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Section 62 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short `the said Act') which provides that the Commissioner may look into complaints inter alia with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities. He also drew our attention to the GR dated 31.3.1990, issued by the Public Works Department of Government of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submits that a direction be given to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the pending representation at the earliest. 5. In our opinion, therefore, it would be appropriate if the petitioner files a detailed fresh representation setting out reasons as to why she wants the flat on the first floor and also quoting the relevant GR and the provisions of said Act. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that such a representation will be made within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the 3rd respondent shall consider and decide it 3 in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks of the receipt thereof and shall communicate result thereof to the petitioner. 7. Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [A.A.Sayed, J.] [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]