Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the respondent Commissioner of Madurai Corporation and after setting aside the same, seeks for an allotment of kiosk to be set up near Mattuthavani or in any other viable place. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioners representation dated 30.10.2007 was considered by the respondent and it was rejected on the ground that as per the present rule in existence, there is no scope for setting up any bunk shop and that the petitioner was accordingly informed. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed and the same was admitted on 19.03.2008. 3. On notice from this court, the counsel for the respondent produced a copy of the note file showing that the issue was considered by the Corporation in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.378, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 09.09.1998. In that Government Order, it was indicated that the Corporation Commissioner of Madurai and the other Corporation Commissioners have been delegated powers to determine the rent for shops to be let out to Government agencies and Cooperative Societies. It was stated that if one person is given such allotment, it may lead to similar claims. Hence the Corporation is unable to consider the request of the petitioner. 4. When a representation was sent by the petitioner, it was considered and rejected. The petitioner had only produced an acknowledgement and not the actual representation sent by him. But, however, in the affidavit, the petitioner had stated that under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, it was the statutory duty of the Government or any other agency of the Government that they must provide employment opportunity and a reference was made to Section 38 of the Act. But even in the affidavit, the petitioner has not mentioned the nature of representation sent by him. Since the petitioner has referred to Section 38 of the Disabilities Act, it is necessary to refer to the said provision and it reads as follows: "38. But even in the affidavit, the petitioner has not mentioned the nature of representation sent by him. Since the petitioner has referred to Section 38 of the Disabilities Act, it is necessary to refer to the said provision and it reads as follows: "38. Schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities.- (1)The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities, and such schemes may provide for- (a) the training and welfare of persons with disabilities; (b) the relaxation of upper age limit; (c) regulating the employment; (d) health and safety measures and creation of a non-handicapping environment in places where persons with disabilities are employed; (e) the manner in which and the persons by whom the cost of operating the schemes is to be defrayed; and (f) constituting the authority responsible for the administration of the scheme." 5. The legal provisions quoted above only enable the local authorities by notification to formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. The said scheme only talks about employment and it is not about self employment scheme sought by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is Section 66 which may have some relevance to the request made by the petitioner. It requires the Corporation to come up with a scheme for such rehabilitation. Section 66 reads as follows: "66. Appropriate Governments and local authorities to undertake rehabilitation.- (1) The appropriate Governments and the local authorities shall within the limits of their economic capacity and development undertake or cause to be undertaken rehabilitation of all persons with disabilities. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the appropriate Governments and local authorities shall grant financial assistance to non-governmental organisations. (3) The appropriate Governments and local authorities while formulating rehabilitation policies shall consult the non-governmental organisations working for the cause of persons with disabilities." 6. Unless and until the Corporation makes a scheme and set apart certain economical activities which may help persons with disablement, the question of the court giving any direction to the respondent to allot a shop to the petitioner that too at a particular place will not arise. While this court is unable to countenance the prayer made by the petitioner, but yet the respondent Corporation cannot escape from the social obligation caste by the Act. While this court is unable to countenance the prayer made by the petitioner, but yet the respondent Corporation cannot escape from the social obligation caste by the Act. Therefore, the respondent Corporation is hereby directed to formulate a scheme both under Section 38 as well as Section 66 of the Act with a view to help persons with disablement to be rehabilitated. In this regard, the Corporation shall convene a meeting of its officers, prepare a scheme and place it before the council for its approval and also put them in the website so that persons who are similarly placed as that of the petitioner can also make their applications. It is not necessary that the scheme should only conceive the allotment of bunk shop, but it could be the scheme which can provide rehabilitation under different spheres for persons with disablement. The respondent shall take a decision in this regard within a period of three months and make a scheme known by bringing it to the notice of general public by due publication. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition will stand disposed of. No costs.