CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9758 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2009 Manjit Singh ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 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 : Petitioner in person Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for Union of India Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the Government of India to ensure that all the State Governments and Local Authorities implement Section 43 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') in letter and spirit including allotment of dwelling units constructed under various CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [2] Housing Schemes. A mandamus directing the respondents to calculate the backlog of dwelling units and to offer the same for allotment to the disabled persons has also been prayed for. When the matter came up for hearing on 17.09.2008, the Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, who was also present in Court on that date, pointed out that a writ petition involving similar issues as those raised for determination in the present writ petition was pending before the Supreme Court for hearing. The hearing of the present writ petition was, therefore, deferred till disposal of the said petition by the Apex Court. The petitioner who appeared in person today points out that Writ Petition No. 576 of 2004 pending before the Supreme Court has been finally disposed off by an order dated 04.03.2009. A copy of the said order has been placed on record by the petitioner alongwith CM No. 7402 of 2009. From a reading of the said order, it is evident that the Supreme Court has directed all the State Governments and Local Authorities to grant preferential treatment to the disabled persons and to allot land at concessional rates whenever such Governments or Local Authorities make allotment for the purposes indicated in Section 43 of the Act. The Apex Court has, however, left the percentage of reservation for such allotment to the discretion of the State Governments and Local Authorities. It is also evident from the order that the Court has directed the Government to appoint a Chief Commissioner to look into the complaints of persons with disabilities in terms of Section 62 of the Act. The State Governments have also been asked to appoint Commissioners in terms of Section 60 of the Act to enable anyone aggrieved of refusal of any CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [3] benefit to him/her to approach the Commissioner with a complaint for appropriate action against the Authorities. The following two passages appearing in the order passed by the Supreme Court are apposite:- “ Under the above circumstances, we direct that whenever the State Governments or Local Authorities allot land for various purposes indicated in Section 43 of the Act and various items indicated in Section 43, preferential treatment be given to the disabled persons and the land shall be given at concessional rate. The percentage of reservation may be left to the discretion of the State Governments/Local Authorities. However, total percentage of disabled persons shall be taken into account while deciding the percentage. The Act has also been provided for appointment of Chief Commissioner to look after the complaints of person with disabilities. Section 62 enables the Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities. We had already directed various State Governments to appoint Chief Commissioner as well as Commissioner and if any person feel that the State Governments/Local Authorities are not extending the benefits to the persons who are entitled to get such benefits under Section 43 of the Act, he would be at liberty to make complaint to the appropriate authorities as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” The petitioner submits that he has already approached the Chief Commissioner at Delhi with a complaint regarding violation of CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [4] the provisions of the Act by the Chandigarh Housing Board, in which regard, the Chief Commissioner has sent a communication dated 18.05.2009 to the Chairman of the Board asking the latter to ensure compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and grant the benefits due to the handicapped persons under the Act and the Scheme as formulated. The petitioner submits that the Chairman of the Board has not responded to the said communication so far. It was also urged that the State Governments have not yet appointed Commissioners in terms of Section 60 of the Act which reads as under:- “ 60. Appointment of Commissioners for persons with disabilities:-(1) Every Statement Government may, by notification appoint a Commissioner for persons with disabilities for the purposes of this Act. 2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Commissioner unless he has special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation. 3) The salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service (including pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits) of the Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. 4) The State Government shall determine the nature and categories of officers and other employees required to assist the Commissioner in the discharge of his functions and provide the Commissioner with such officers and other employees as it thinks fit. 5) The officers and employees provided to the Commissioner shall discharge their functions under the general superintendence of the CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [5] Commissioner. 6) The salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of officers and employees provided to the Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government.” The controversy regarding grant or refusal of the benefits due to the eligible persons under the Act is squarely covered by the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the writ petition mentioned above. There is in that view no room for making any further direction in that regard. In so far as the specific complaint made by the petitioner before the Chief Commissioner is concerned, we do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the merits thereof in the present proceedings at this stage. Since the matter has been taken up with the Chief Commissioner and since the Chief Commissioner is seized of the same, we hope and trust that the Chairman of the Chandigarh Housing Board would suitably respond to the request made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the subject in accordance with law expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of six months from today. As regards the appointment of Commissioners by the State Governments, the direction issued by the Supreme Court does not appear to have been carried out by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana. M/S Khosla and Randhir Singh appearing on their behalf submit that the Governments would look into the matter in the right earnest and take appropriate steps in compliance with the said direction as also the provisions of the Act within a reasonable period so that those aggrieved of any denial of benefit under the Act can approach the CWP No. 9758 of 2008 [6] Commissioners appointed by the Governments for appropriate redress. That statement is recorded and the writ petition disposed of with the observation that the needful shall be done by the State Governments without any further loss of time. A copy of the order shall be given dasti to M/S Khosla and Randhir Singh for compliance under the signature of the Bench Secretary. Pending applications are also disposed off in terms of the above order. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 16.07.2009 'ravinder'