Saturday, September 9, 2017

Om Prakash Vs. Chairman NDMC & Anr. | Case No. 4/634/2014/Wel./CD/ 1755-58 | Dated: 08.09.2017



In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/634/2014/Wel./CD/ 1755-58                      Dated: 08.09.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Om Prakash
DMS Booth No. 77
Sanatan Dharam Mandir
Laxmibai Nagar
New Delhi-110023                                        ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         
The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal  council
Palika Kendra
Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001                                   ………...…Respondent- 1

Asstt. Commissioner of Police(Laxmibai Nagar)
Safdarjung Enclave Police Station
Delhi                                                           ………...…Respondent- 2

Date of Hearing: 28.08.2017

Present:              Sh. Om Prakash, the complainant
Sh. Naheem Ahmed, Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Anoop Singh, Inspectors of NDMC

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with 56% locomotor disability vide his complaint received on 22.04.2014, submitted that he was allotted a DMS booth in Laxmibai Nagar, 14 years ago.  There is an NDMC Kiosk close by which was sold out by the original allottee to another person who keeps a variety of goods on the footpath and creates garbage all around.  The complainant also alleged that the said persons abuses him and intimidates him.  His daughter and son-in-law also used derogatory language against the complainant.  He also alleged that the said person has the support of NDMC and the Police.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 13.05.2014 followed by 08.08.2014 and hearings on 01.07.2014, 30.10.2014, 19.11.2014, 19.01.2015, 23.02.2015, 30.03.2015, 29.04.2015, 30.06.2015, 30.07.2015, 01.09.2015, 01.10.2015, 02.11.2015, 23.05.16 and 29.07.2016.

3.      Respondent No. 1 submitted a copy of sealing MEMO dated 29.07.2015 issued to Sh. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia and Sh. Mohan Singh (unauthorised occupants of Kiosk No. 56, Laxmibai Nagar). The complainant again alleged harassment by Sh. Satinder Bhati.  Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 was directed to increase frequency of raids.

4.      The Office of Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District vide letter dated 15.11.2016 informed that the Investigating Officer of P.S. Sarojini Nagar seized the articles of Mr. Neeraj Kumar and deposited the same into police stations malkhana.  Beat Constable has been directed to keep the watch and hence no further action was required.  A copy of the report of the Police was sent to the complainant for his comments vide letter dated 09.01.2017.  The complainant vide his letter received on 30.05.2017 inter alia stated that Sh. Satinder Bhati on one pretext or the other tries to harass him.

5.      A copy of the complainant was also received from the office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities who had received an e-mail from Sh. Gajendra Narayan Karna, regarding case.    

6.      It is observed from the papers in the case file that Kiosk No. 56, at Laxmi Bai Nagar Market, Near DMS Booth was seemingly allotted to  Sh. Harjeet Singh who is stated to have expired.  The shop was being run by him and one Sh. Mohan Singh under some agreement and thereafter by Sh. Satinder Bhati.  As per the report of the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District dated 22.11.2016, the said kiosk was being used by Sh. Neeraj Kumar S/o of Sh. Satinder Bhati.  It is however not clear from the available papers in the file whether the current occupants of the said kiosk are the legitimate lease holders or not.

7.      During the hearing on 28.08.2017, the complainant stated that neither Sh. Neeraj Kumar nor his father Sh. Satinder Bhati is the authorised lease holder.  Sh. Satinder Bhati, who according to him, is a DDA employee, continues to sell goods from near his DMS booth and harasses him besides adversely affecting his business.

8.      The representatives of the respondent submitted that they are from the Enforcement Directorate and are responsible for removing any encroachment.  Whenever they receive any complaint either from the complainant or any other person, they remove encroachment as per rules.  This is a continuous practice.  They offered to give the mobile number of the concerned Area Inspector to the complainant who can inform him in case of any encroachment.  As regards harassment, the complainant should report the matter to the police.  They further submitted that the said kiosk no. 56 was sealed and continues as such.  If any person including Sh. Satinder Bhati and Sh. Neeraj Kumar has encroached unauthorisedly, the same will be removed immediately.

9.      The respondents are advised to ensure that the concerned persons as mentioned above do not harass the complainant and adversely affect his livelihood by organising regular vigil of the area.  It is brought to the notice of all concerned that Section 92 (a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that,

                    Whoever,—
(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.” Section 89 of the said Act also provides for “punishment for contravention of provisions of the said Act or Rules or regulations made there under which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees.”  Further, as per Section 7 (4) of the Act, Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of—(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance among other things to ensure that the person with disability is protected from abuse, violence and exploitation.

10.    The complainant is advised to approach the concerned Police Officials in case of any harassment.  The concerned Police Officers are advised to ensure that the complainant is not harassed by any person and his rights are not infringed. 

11.    During the last over 3 years, this Court has taken various steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The concerned authorities namely, NDMC and the Delhi Police have taken action in accordance with the law and have undertaken to take measures under the relevant provisions of the Act so that the complainant is not harassed.  In the light of this and with above advice, the complaint is disposed of.

12.   Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 8th day of September, 2017.     

                                                                                     (T.D. Dhariyal)
                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:
The Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disability w.r.t. case No. 6328/1141/2016 dated 04.08.2017.


Mohammed Shabbir Ahmed Khan Vs. The Commissioner, EDMC | Case No. 4/1616/2017-Wel/CD/1759-60 | Dated: 08.09.2017

Case Summary:

Mohammed Shabbir Ahmed Khan Vs. The Commissioner, EDMC

Employment: Complainant’s kiosk was removed by MCD in his absence in June 2010, and the officers of the MCD on 15.07.10 assured this court that he would be allotted a shop in the near future but this hasn’t yet happened. He further submitted that he had received a receipt requiring him to pay Rs. 9000/- on account of encroachment. On contacting the complainant, he informed the court that he had no problem in running his kiosk but he requested that he should be given the license for the kiosk.
As a large number of persons with disabilities had filed complaints related with police stopping them from street vending and the case was pending in the High Court, this Court reiterated recommendations made in an order dated 27.10.17, ie; (1) Persons with disabilities vending as on 13.09.13 should not be disturbed and be allowed to continue vending (2) Persons with disabilities who applied for the vending license but was not granted it should not be denied vending rights on not being covered by “existing vendors” on 13.09.13, so long as they can produce proof of application. (3) Functionaries of Municipalities/Cantonment Board should be sensitized to deal with persons with disabilities, particularly while seizing and releasing their goods.


Order / Judgement: 


In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
  
Case No. 4/1616/2017-Wel/CD/1759-60                          Dated: 08.09.2017

In the matter of:                                

Sh. Mohammed Shabbir Ahmed Khan
A-39, Gali No. 1, Pahala Pusta,
New Usmanpur,
Delhi-110053                                                          ................ Complainant

                                          Versus      
                   
The Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419, Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Instl. Area,
Delhi-110096                                                         ………...…Respondent


Dates of Hearing:        06.09.2017

Present:                        Dr. M.L. Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara, North Zone, Sh. Ritesh Kumar, Labour Welfare Supdt. Shahdara South and Shahdara North on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER
         
          The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint received on 11.04.207 submitted that he is a R/o Khan Pan Masala, Pehla Pushta, Near Transformer New Usmanpur, Delhi-110053.  In June 2010 he informed this court that his shop (kiosk) was removed by MCD in his absence.  The officers of MCD on 15.07.2010 assured this court that he would be allotted a shop in near future.  However, he has not been allotted any shop till date.  He further submitted that on 07.04.2017 someone gave him a receipt which required him to be present at C-12, Main Yamuna Vihar Road, Maujpur, Delhi to pay Rs. 9000/- on account of encroachment which is to be deposited within 3 days.  The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 06.06.2017 followed by reminder dated 27.07.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 06.09.2017 vide summons dated 28.08.2017.

2.      Dr. M.L. Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara, North Zone and Sh. Ritesh Kumar, Labour Welfare Supdt. Shahdara South and Shahdara North appeared and submitted that the details of the case have not so far reached them.  However allotments of kiosks, etc. is to be done as per the recommendation of the Town Vending Committees.  The matter is before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.  A copy of the complaint and the related papers were handed over to Dr. M.L. Sharma.

3.      As the complainant was not present, he was contacted on his given phone.  He submitted that he has gone to his Home Town in Muzzafarpur, Bihar.  He has no problem in running of his kiosk.  However, he requested that he should be given the licence for the shop/kiosk.

4.      A large number of persons with disabilities had filed complaints in connection with harassment by enforcement officials or denial of permission to earn their livelihoods through street vending.  All those the complaints were disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2017, a copy of which is enclosed.  In view of the fact that the representation in those cases concerned the livelihoods of a large number of persons with disabilities who face adverse situations on day-to-day basis and that the issue of constitution of the Town Vending Committees is before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi who are seized of the issues connected therewith, the following recommendations have been made:

“i.  The persons with disabilities, who were vending as on 13.09.2013, should not be disturbed and be allowed to earn their livelihood by selling various articles.

ii.  Persons with disabilities who fulfilled eligibility conditions and had applied for vending licence, allotment of kiosks etc. Before 13.09.2013 but were not issued the licence while those who applied after them, were given the licence, should not be denied vending right on the ground that their names do not exist in the list of registered vendors as they would have been covered under the ‘existing vendors’ as on 13.09.2013 had their applications been processed in time by the concerned Municipal authorities.  Such vendors should however produce the proof of having applied for the vending licence, allotment of kiosks, etc.

iii. The concerned functionaries of the Municipalities/Cantonment Board should be properly and adequately sensitised to deal with persons with disabilities with dignity, particularly while seizing and releasing their goods (perishable/non-perishable) which should be released within the prescribed time limit and be considerate in levying fines.”

5.      The case of the complainant may also be dealt in terms of the above mentioned recommendations of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2017.  The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

6.           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 8th day of August, 2017.     

                                                                                          (T.D. Dhariyal)
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Amit Kumar Mit Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police(North District) | Case No.4/1487/2016-Wel./CD/1770-1771 | Dated:08.09.2017

Case Summary:

Amit Kumar Mit Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North District)

Atrocities: Complainant alleged that his neighbor has been harassing him in multiple ways, including blocking the entry to the Complainant’s house with his car, verbal abuse, mockery, and the filing of a false criminal case in order to get him to vacate his house. Complainant alleged that the police tends to side with the neighbor in matters. The Respondent informed that on enquiry, it was found that both parties used inappropriate language and preventive action u/s 107/151 CRPC was taken against both of them, which is pending in the SEM Court - North.

On contacting the complaint, he informed the court that the matter had been resolved, and the court closed the case in view of the matter pending before the SEM Court (North). However, the Court explained the provisions of Sections 7 and 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 detailing the duty of the police to Persons with Disabilities and the punishment for intentionally insulting, intimidating or humiliating said persons.


Order / Judgement: 


In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.4/1487/2016-Wel./CD/1770-1771                    Dated:08.09.2017                                       

In the matter of:

Sh. Amit Kumar Mit
R/o 124/5, 125/1
Gali no. 98/1
Sant Nagar, Burari
Delhi – 110084.                                                                   .......Complainant
Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police(North District)
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Station Civil Lines,
New Delhi – 110054.                                                           ........Respondent 

ORDER

The above named complaint, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his email dated 23,12,2016 submitted that his neighbour Sh. Deen Dayal wrongfully parks his vehicle in front of the entry to his house. They do not pay heed to his request. Sh. Deen Dayal and his wife were pressuring him to vacate the house.  They also make mockery of his disability, cut jokes on him and his wife in front of others. This causes mental harassment and torture. They also filed a false complainant against him on 03.09.2016 and falsely implicated him is a criminal case so that they vacant the house. The  complainant  alleged that the local police also tends to side with Sh. Deen Dayal and his wife Smt. Jyoti. He was put behind bars for a night in the local police station on a ( Police complaint under section 107(151) of Cr.PC) (P),  SEM court allowed him the bail on the next day. He further stated that he is an ordinary citizen and has done BCA and LLB. He requested that the police may be advised to be positive and protect him and his family from the harassment. A copy of the complaint was also received from Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal, National Federation of Disabled Rights vide letter dated 24.12.2016.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2016 followed by reminder dated 02.02.2017 and 20.02.2017. A  hearing was scheduled on 12.04.2017. In the mean time the respondent vide letter dated 04.04.2017 inter-alia informed that an enquiry was got conducted by ACP/Civil Lines which revealed that alleged parks his vehicle in front of vacant plot opposite to his house, near the house of complainant. On 03.08.2016, complainant asked him to remove his motor cycle and exchanged hot words with him. He told him that there is no space in the street to remove the bike. On this complainant started using filthy language and threatened him. Both the parties used hot and filthy language against each other. Hence, preventive action u/s 107/151 CR.PC has already been taken against both the parties which is pending in the SEM Court/North.

3.      On 12.04.2017 neither of the parties attended the hearing. The complainant was however advised to submit his comments on the reply of the respondent by 29.05.2017 failing which the case would be treated as disposed off. As there was no response from the complainant, he was contacted. He informed that the matter has been resolved.

4.      In view of the forgoing and the fact that the matter is before the SEM court – (North), the complaint is closed and disposed off accordingly. However,  it is brought to the notice of the respondent  that section 7 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides as under:

  “(1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall— (a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents; (b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting; (c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and (d) create awareness and make available information among the public. 

(2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur. 

(3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order— (a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be
(b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires; (c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability.

(4) Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of— (a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance; (b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (c) the right to free legal aid; and (d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence. 

(5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter.”

5.      The respondent may also bring to the notice of the concerned parties that Section 92 of the said Act also provides for punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine for intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a persons with disability in any place with in public view among other offences. The respondent may also consider sensitising the residents of the locality on disability issues in consultation/collaboration with district social welfare officer and NGOs working in the disability sector. 

4.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this  07th day of  September, 2017.          

                                                                                      (T.D. Dhariyal )
                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

      




Rohtas Singh Vs. The Commissioner, EDMC | Case No. 4/1581/2017-Wel/CD/1761-62 | Dated: 08.09.2017

Case Summary:

Rohtas Singh Vs. The Commissioner, EDMC

Employment: Complainant submitted that he met with an accident and lost his right arm, losing all his property in his treatment and has no other means of livelihood than the kiosk at Anand Vihar Railway Station.

Court referenced recommendations made in Case No. 4/1233/2016-Wel/CD; (1) Persons with disabilities vending as on 13.09.13 should not be disturbed and be allowed to continue vending (2) Persons with disabilities who applied for the vending license but was not granted it should not be denied vending rights on not being covered by “existing vendors” on 13.09.13, so long as they can produce proof of application. (3) Functionaries of Municipalities/Cantonment Board should be sensitized to deal with persons with disabilities, particularly while seizing and releasing their goods.
Court enclosed a copy of the above order, and further noted that it is expected that the concerned officers would take a sympathetic view and let the complaint earn his livelihood lawfully and peacefully.


Order / Judgement: 


In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


Case No. 4/1581/2017-Wel/CD/1761-62            Dated: 08.09.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Rohtas Singh
R/o A-29, First Floor, DLF,
Bhopura, Gaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201005                                             ................ Complainant

                                          Versus                          
The Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419, Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Instl. Area,
Delhi-110096                                                            ………...…Respondent

Dates of Hearing           06.09.2017

Present:                         Sh. Rohtas Singh, Complainant
Dr. M.L. Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara, North Zone, Sh. Ritesh Kumar, Labour Welfare Supdt. Shahdara South and Shahdara North on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER
         
The complaint dated 07.03.2017 of the above named complainant, a person with 89% locomotor disability which was received from the Court of Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 29.03.2017, was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 31.05.2017 followed by a reminder dated 25.07.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled vide the summons dated 25.08.2017.

2.       None appeared on behalf of the respondent on 06.09.2017.  However, Dr. M.L. Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara, North Zone and Sh. Ritesh Kumar, Labour Welfare Supdt. Shahdara South and Shahdara North appeared in case No. 4/1616/2017-Wel/CD in Mohd. Shabbir Ahmed Khan Vs. Commissioner East Delhi Municipal Corporation.  They were requested to bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Dy. Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner and to take appropriate action in the matter and submit a report by 19.09.2017.   Copies of the relevant papers of the case were also given to Dr. Sharma for handing over the concern Dy. Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner. 

3.       The complainant reiterated his written submissions and stated that he met with an accident on 26.11.2012 and lost his right arm.  He lost all his property in his treatment and has no other means of livelihood than the kiosk at Anand Vihar Railway Station.  He submitted that he may be allowed to earn his livelihood as otherwise he and his family of 9 persons, would have no means of livelihood.

4.       This court vide order dated 27.07.2017 has made the following recommendations in case No. 4/1233/2016-Wel/CD in view of the fact that the representations in those cases concern the livelihoods of a large number of persons with disabilities who face adverse situations on day-to-day basis and that the issue of constitution of the Town Vending Committees is before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi who are seized of the issues connected therewith:
“ i.      The persons with disabilities, who were vending as on 13.09.2013, should not be disturbed and be allowed to earn their livelihood by selling various articles.
ii        Persons with disabilities who fulfilled eligibility conditions and had applied for vending licence, allotment of kiosks etc. Before 13.09.2013 but were not issued the licence while those who applied after them, were given the licence, should not be denied vending right on the ground that their names do not exist in the list of registered vendors as they would have been covered under the ‘existing vendors’ as on 13.09.2013 had their applications been processed in time by the concerned Municipal authorities.  Such vendors should however produce the proof of having applied for the vending licence, allotment of kiosks, etc.
iii       The concerned functionaries of the Municipalities/Cantonment Board should be properly and adequately sensitised to deal with persons with disabilities with dignity, particularly while seizing and releasing their goods (perishable/non-perishable) which should be released within the prescribed time limit and be considerate in levying fines.”

5.       A copy of the order dated 27.07.2017 is enclosed with this order.

6.       It is expected that the concerned officers would take a sympathetic view and let the complainant earn his livelihood in a lawful and peaceful manner.  The complainant is disposed off.

7.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 8th day of August, 2017.     

                                                                                          (T.D. Dhariyal)
                          State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Thursday, September 7, 2017

Narender Kumar Sharma Vs. District Magistrate North District | Case No. 4/ 1322 /2016-Wel/CD/ 1724-1726 | Dated: 06.09.2017

Case Summary:

Narender Kumar Sharma Vs. District Magistrate (North District)

Miscellaneous: Complainant submitted that his property has been acquired but that no alternate plot had been allotted to him despite a lapse of 14 months. After communications, GNCT submitted that the file had been sent to District (North) for taking further action, so the matter was taken up with the District Magistrate (North). There were further submissions from GNCT about the inadequacy of documents submitted, to which the complainant noted that he had submitted all documents in the initial stage itself and photocopies thereafter. In view of the age and locomotor disability of the complainant, the Respondent was advised to decide the case within 3 months from the date of receipt of the record of proceedings dated 25-26.05.2016. The Respondent submit an action report on 31.08.17, and when the Complainant was contacted on the telephone it was confirmed that the required papers had been received and the complaint was being processed on priority. Court recommended that the Respondent look into the matter personally, and brought  the provisions of Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to the notice of the Respondent.


Order / Judgement: 


In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/ 1322 /2016-Wel/CD/ 1724-1726                                      Dated: 06.09.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma,
H.No.3, Gandhi Nagar,
Near Gandhi Ashram Gandhi Road,
Meerut Uttar Pradesh-250002.                                             .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus
The District Magistrate,
North District,
Alipur, New Delhi-110036.                                                      …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:            13.02.2017, 19.05.2017, 31.08.2017
Present                           None.
         
ORDER

                  The above named complainant stated to be a person with 75% locomotor disability and a native of district Meerut vide his complaint dated 20.04.2016 addressed to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities who forwarded the said complaint to this Court vide letter dated 13.06.2016,  submitted that his land at Prahladpur Bangar  reference No. F.33(77)/34/203-L&B/Alt./22676 of Public Information Officer / Dy. Secretary (Task Force), Land & Building, Alternative Branch Task Force-1003, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi had been acquired.  He had submitted all the documents sought by the concerned Departments.  Despite lapse of nearly 14 months, no action on his application for allotment of alternative plot had been taken.  He further submitted that he is a person with disability and senior citizen and has to face a lot of difficulties in travelling from place to place.  
                 
2.               The complaint was taken up with the Secretary, Land and Building, GNCT of Delhi vide communication dated 01.08.2016.  Dy. Secretary, Task Force Branch, Land & Building vide his letter dated 08.08.2016 informed that the case of the complainant was placed before the Recommendation Committee on 26.06.2014 and 31.12.2014 and thereafter in compliance of the decision, GNCT of Delhi vide order No. Misc./VIP Ref./2015/23140-58 dated 23.02.2016, the file No. F. 33 (77)/34/2003/L&B/Aly (draft Sr.No. 1003) had already been sent to District North for taking further necessary action.  Hence no action was pending on the part of that office.  After exchange of a number of correspondence between the Office of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the Land and Building Department, the matter was taken up with the District Magistrate, North District and a hearing was scheduled on 13.02.2017. None appeard on behalf of District Magistrate (North). 

3.               On the next date of hearing on 19.05.2017, Sh. R.K. Sharma, S.O. who appeared on behalf of the respondent submitted that the file of the complainant had been received from the Land and Building Department.  After scrutiny of the file of the complainant a deficiency memo dated 13.12.2016 was issued to the complainant. The required documents have not been placed in the file.  He further submitted that the Land and Building Department has not provided the staff for processing the cases and therefore, the Office of District Magistrate (North) is not able to process the file further. As soon as the staff is posted, the cases including that of Sh. N.K. Sharma will be processed as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and as per his seniority in the list, which is 185. On the given telephone of the complainant, his son responded. He informed that the complainant was not in a position to travel.  However, all the documents had been provided to the respondent’s office. He was advised to arrange a skype meeting with his father on the next date of hearing if possible.

4.               It is seen from the case file that the the complainant had submitted two sets of papers in the Office of  the SDM (Alipur), District Magistrate (North) Office on 10.01.2017.  A set of the same was handed over to the representative of the respondent during the hearing on 19.05.2017.  

5.               It was also observed from the papers in the case file that the Land and Building Deptt. had asked the complainant to submit certain documents on 09.02.2015 and according to the complainant he had submitted all the documents at the initial stage itself and subsequently the photocopies thereof were also submitted on 14.02.2015.  Thereafter, the Land and Building Deptt. (Task Force Branch) informed him that his case had been sent to District Magistrate, District North.

6.               In the light of the statement of the complainant that he is a senior citizen with locomoter disability and  has been made to run around since 27.03.2003 without any positive outcome,  District Magistrate (North) was advised to decide the case of the complainant within three months from the date of receipt of  the record of proceedings dated 25-26.05.2016. Secretary, Land and Building Department was also advised to extend necessary cooperation and help as the respondent No. 2 had submitted that the Land & Building Department had not provided staff to the Office of District Magistrate, North for processing the case. The respondent was directed to submit action taken report on 31.08.2017.

7.         On 31.08.2017, none appeared for hearing. The son of the complainant was contacted on telephone and  he informed that he has again submitted all the documents in the Office of Sh. N.K. Sharma, SDM (HQ), D.M. (North) Office, Alipur, Near Shraddanand College, Delhi-110036.  When Sh. N.K. Sharma, SDM(HQ) was contacted on telephone, he confirmed that the required papers had been received and the case of the complainant was being processed on priority. However, due to transfer of concerned person nobody could attend the hearing.  Needless to mention that the complainant has already waited for long and in the process, has got harassed due to inordinate delay in allotment of alternative plot of land.  It is recommended that  District Magistrate (North) should  look into the matter personally and ensure that  needful is done by 29.09.2017. A report be submitted to this Court under intimation to the complainant by that 29.09.2017 as three months time for submission of action taken report has already expired.

8.         It is once again brought to the notice of the respondent that Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016 provides that “whenever the State Commissioner makes a recommendation to an authority in pursuance of clause (b) of Section 80, that authority shall take necessary action on it, and inform the State Commissioner of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation:

Provided that where an authority does not accept a recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non-acceptance to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities within the period of three months, and shall also inform the aggrieved person”.

9.            The matter is disposed of with the above recommendation.         
     
10.          Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 5th day of September,2017.     
  
                                                                    (T.D. Dhariyal)
                                                  State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Copy to:-
            Secretary, Land & Building Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi , Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.