IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5651 of 2009 Date of decision: May 12, 2009. Harjinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion to respondents No.1 & 2 only at this stage. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. There is no necessity to issue any notice to respondent No.3 at this stage. The petitioner is stated to be a person suffering with disability of more than 40%, duly certified by the medical authority. He is serving with PUDA and is presently on deputation with Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA). His grievance is that notwithstanding the statutory obligation cast upon the State of Punjab, PUDA and GMADA to frame a policy for preferential allotment of land on concessional rates for the housing purposes to the persons with disability, as provided under Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short the 1995 Act), no such policy decision has been taken by the respondents nor any preferential allotment is being made, inasmuch, as the petitioner's repeated representations have been turned down with an evasive reply dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-14) by suggesting that he being an employee of PUDA, should approach the parent authority. Suffice it to say that the petitioner's both legs and arms are stated to be polio affected and he claims to be fully eligible for the protection and privileges extended to the persons with disabilities by the 1995 Act. If that is so, the petitioner's claim could not have been turned down by limiting its consideration as if he had sought the allotment being an employee of PUDA only. In other words, the petitioner's claim ought to have been considered in the light of the policy decision, if any, taken under the 1995 Act and/or by taking such decision which should be in consonance with Section 43 of the Act. Considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner and/or other similarly situated persons with disabilities, is yet to be considered by the respondents in terms of a policy decision, if any, taken or to be taken under the 1995 Act, I do not deem it necessary to express any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim and rather dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State of Punjab, PUDA and GMADA to decide the petitioner's representation in the light of the provisions, especially Section 43 of the 1995 Act. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. May 12, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge