ORDER : Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are visually impaired and differently-abled persons who were running STD booths in various railway stations under the licence granted by the third respondent herein. Since the respondents had dispossessed them and had subsequently prevented them from carrying on STD booths, they had collectively filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to continue with the licence as per the earlier terms and also sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to frame a scheme under Section 38 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Disabilities Act') for running telephone booths in railway platforms and railway stations. 3. The case of the petitioners is that in the month of October 2012, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager had informed all the disabled persons that they would not be granted any extension of their licence for running telephone booths and advised them to lock the booths, till the Railway Board takes a final decision. Consequently, the electricity to the said booths were disconnected. In spite of several representations, there was no response on the same. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Disabilities Act had an objective to prevent the disabled, protect their rights and remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities vis-a-vis non disabled persons. Though the Government had constituted coordination committees and executive committees at Central and State levels to carry out various functions, no effective scheme has been introduced till date, which necessitated them to file the present writ petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that with the advent of the mobile phones, the requirement of STD booths have become scarce and since no demand for the said business was in vogue, the respondents have taken a decision to discontinue the STD booths in the railway stations. Learned Standing Counsel however would submit that the respondents are in the process of devising a scheme for ensuring employment to person with disabilities. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 7. Learned Standing Counsel however would submit that the respondents are in the process of devising a scheme for ensuring employment to person with disabilities. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 7. Section 43 of the Disabilities Act deals with preferential allotment of land at concessional rates for setting up business apart from the other establishments. The right of the petitioners flows from the Disabilities Act which came into effect from 07.02.1996 and the petitioners were granted licence in 1999 to run STD booths. As such, the petitioners will have the right to continue with the occupation of the said booths in view of the statutory sanction provided by Section 43 of the Disabilities Act. 8. Nevertheless, taking a practical and pragmatic view, on the basis of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it may not be conducive or a profitable business of running STD booths in railway stations in this period when most of the citizens have access to mobile phones. But at the same time, the petitioners right which mandates from Section 43 of the Disabilities Act cannot be ignored. Section 43 falls in Chapter VII of the Disabilities Act under the caption “Affirmative Action”. As such there is a duty cast on the appropriate Government and local authorities to frame schemes in favour of the persons with disabilities for preferential allotment. The decision to frame a scheme cannot be termed to be a policy decision but it is an affirmative action in view of the statutory sanction under Section 43 of the Disabilities Act. 9. It is a matter of common knowledge that even before the enactment of the Disabilities Act schemes for disabled persons were in vogue. The petitioners who had the benefit of preferential allotment in their favour should not and cannot be dislodged on any count. The respondents are bound to extend the preferential treatment to the petitioners. Though the Disabilities Act came into effect from 07.02.1996, no scheme has been framed in favour of the persons with disabilities for preferential allotment for the past more than 20 years. It is reiterated that there is a duty cast upon them by the Legislature under Section 43 of the Disabilities Act. Though the Disabilities Act came into effect from 07.02.1996, no scheme has been framed in favour of the persons with disabilities for preferential allotment for the past more than 20 years. It is reiterated that there is a duty cast upon them by the Legislature under Section 43 of the Disabilities Act. Furthermore, Section 38 of the Disabilities Act mandates the Government and the local authorities to notify schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. 10. Though the petitioners have sought for a specific direction to continue with their licence, in view of the above observations, it would not be conducive to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue with their licence for running the STD booths. Further, it would also not be appropriate to give a preferential treatment to the petitioners and accommodate them with any business framed under the aforesaid scheme since there can be other disabled persons who may stand for a better preference than that of the petitioners. As such, it would be open to the respondents to consider each of the petitioner's case on their own merits along with other disabled persons. 11. Under such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to frame an appropriate scheme under Section 43 of the Disabilities Act in favour of the persons with disabilities for preferential allotment within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On framing of such scheme, the petitioners are granted liberty to make applications under the scheme and on receipt of the same, the respondents 2 to 4 shall consider the same in accordance with their individual entitlement vis-a-vis other disabled persons and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of their respective applications. 12. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.