Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1091 (MAD)

A. Udriyanathan v. Special Commissioner

2012-02-29

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have come forward with more or less similar prayer. The prayer was that the Corporation of Chennai should be restrained from disturbing the petitioners' bunk stalls at the respective locations indicated in the prayer and to pass further orders. 2. The petitioners placed reliance upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.11390 of 2007, wherein this Court directed the respondent Corporation to dispose of the representation of the petitioner therein. The petitioners, who are not covered by the said writ petition, had sent a representation to the State Commissioner for Disabled, Chennai stating that despite their giving representation for running a bunk stall, no orders have been passed. It transpires that the State Commissioner addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai stating that the Corporation considered the request of the petitioners continuing with their bunks/P.C.O. booths and it was also stated that in case, those bunks have to be removed for V.V.I.P. security reasons, eviction can be done after providing alternative sites and direction was given not to evict bunk stalls and P.C.O. booths of disabled persons. 3. The first two writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.17068 and 17076 of 2011 were admitted on 08.05.2007 and the third writ petition in W.P.No.17656 of 2011 was admitted on 04.06.2007. Pending the writ petitions, interim injunction was granted in all the three cases. Subsequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.17656 of 2007 was rejected for not complying with the office objections regarding the completion of service of process vide order dated 22.04.2008. The respondent Corporation has not filed any counter affidavit till date. However, Ms.Karthikaa Ashok, learned standing counsel for the Corporation produced an order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20008 to 20011 of 2011 dated 14.11.2011 the case relating to S.Bharathiand others Vs. State Commissioner for Differently Abled and another. In the said case, the petitioners were directed to make proposals to the second respondent Corporation within a time frame and the Corporation was directed to consider the same in accordance with law, if such proposals are made. However, such an ad-hoc solution will not give any proper solution to either side. 4. On the contrary, the Corporation of Chennai must be reminded of its social responsibility imposed by The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, such an ad-hoc solution will not give any proper solution to either side. 4. On the contrary, the Corporation of Chennai must be reminded of its social responsibility imposed by The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under Section 38 of the Act, the appropriate Government or local authority by a Notification must formulate a scheme for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities and also provide for the training and welfare of persons with disabilities. Like Section 38, Section 43 of the Act also enables the local authority by a Notification to frame a scheme in favour of persons with disabilities for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rate for setting up of business. A combined reading of the provisions would clearly cast an obligation on the Corporation, being a local authority to frame appropriate scheme for disabled persons and it is fairly admitted that no such scheme has been framed by the Corporation. If it is so, a direction is issued to the Corporation of Chennai to implement the scheme in respect of the disabled and also to identify if any such scheme is framed, whether any preferential allotment can be made for persons with disabilities either for maintaining the shop, bunk or telephone booth and on framing a scheme, it shall be widely published and also uploaded in the official website of the Corporation for public notice. On such notice being put up, the persons with disabilities can make such applications and if they are qualified, necessary shops may be allotted as enjoined under the provisions of the Act. The above exercise shall be carried out by the Corporation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and public notice shall be put up with the salient features of the scheme both in the electronic and print media. 5. With the above direction, all the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.