Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 40 (HP)

AJAI SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF H. P.

2014-01-07

KULDIP SINGH, MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGEMENT MANSOOR AHMAD, J. 1. IN both the writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking relief in terms of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and notifications made by the Central Government relating to the persons with disability. It is profitable to reproduce the reliefs sought in CWP No. 9316 of 2012 and CWPIL No. 6 of 2013 as under: "i) That the respondent State may be directed to implement the provisions of the Act as mentioned in the writ petition particularly Sections 21, 25 to 30, 34, 38, 41, 43 to 48, 57, 60, 66, 67. ii) That Notification Annexure P1 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent State be directed to appoint an independent Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 60 of the Act. iii) That State Coordination Committee and State Executive Committee may be directed to strictly act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. iv) That the H.P. Board of School Education, may be directed to strictly modify the curriculum as per provisions of the Act and provide appropriate curriculum and remove the defects as mentioned in para supra. v) H.P. University, Shimla and all other institutions may be directed to provide 3% reservation for all courses through out the State to the persons with disabilities. vi) That the respondent Chairman of H.P. Private Regularly Commission to direct to implement the guidelines of U.G.C. for providing 3% reservation in all Private Universities in the State in admission of the course. vii) That the respondent State be directed to provide barrier free environment to the persons with disabilities in all its public places, buildings of the convenience and utility. viii) That respondent State be directed not to sanction any map of public buildings which are not having barrier free facilities. ix) That the respondent State be directed to make provisions of barrier free buses, taxis, roads and railway platform etc. x) That the respondent State be directed to provide free transport facilities to the persons with disabilities in buses including private buses and scheme be made for implementing of such directions. ix) That the respondent State be directed to make provisions of barrier free buses, taxis, roads and railway platform etc. x) That the respondent State be directed to provide free transport facilities to the persons with disabilities in buses including private buses and scheme be made for implementing of such directions. xi) That the respondents be burdened with costs." "Sir, therefore, I very humbly request your goodself, if you deem it fit, to kindly direct the State to implement the sections i to vi, ix, x, xi, xii and xiv of the Policy with immediate effect to provide benefit of the same to the students with disabilities in the running academic session i.e. 201213. The rest of the sections may be implemented from the next academic session i.e. 201314 as implementation thereof may require some infrastructure to be created." 2. MR. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General, states that he is under instructions to state that the respondents/State is ready to consider the prayers made by the writ petitioners, which is for the benefit of handicapped and disabled persons. His statement is taken on record. Keeping in view the reliefs sought supra read with the statement made by the learned Advocate General, we deem it proper to dispose of both the writ petitions by commanding the respondents/State to examine the reliefs sought supra in light of the law applicable, rules, circulars, notifications, guidelines and instructions made by the Central Government from time to time, which are holding field as on today, relating to the subject matter of the writ petitions, within eight weeks and pass appropriate orders and directions. Disposed of accordingly alongwith the connected CMPs.