In
the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital
Territory of Delhi
25- D,
Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016]
Case No.888/1101/2019/05/6681-6682 Dated:16.10.2019
In the matter of:
Sh. Arun Shah,
Executive Director
Delhi Association of the Deaf,
C-12 Qutuv Institutional Area,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. ……..Complainant
Delhi Association of the Deaf,
C-12 Qutuv Institutional Area,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. ……..Complainant
Versus
The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal
Corporation
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre
JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. ..........Respondent
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre
JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. ..........Respondent
Date of Hearing: 14.10.2019
Present: Sh.
Santosh Kumar Pathak, JE, SDMC (Ward 61 South) on behalf of SDMC
ORDER
Sh.
Arun Shah, Executive Director, Delhi Association of the Deaf vide letter dated
07.05.2019 submitted that the Delhi Association of the Deaf (DAD) established
in 1950 has been involved in serving persons with hearing impairment for nearly
seven decades at Qutub Institutional Area and has a Research and Rehabilitation
Centre for the Deaf. The surface of
cement concrete road from C-1 to C-12 has worn out and poses constant danger
for the people to walk. Association had
approached various authorities and Dr. Karan Singh, Member of the then Rajya
Sabha had even sanctioned Rs.17.75 lakhout of his MPLADS fund. It is further
stated that the members of the Organisation, who are physically challenged and
senior citizens, face problems to negotiate the road. They were not clear whether the road falls
under the jurisdiction of PWD or SDMC.
2. The
matter was referred to Engineer-in-Chief, PWD vide letter dated
23.05.2019. The Nodal Officer for
accessibility in PWD, referred the matter to Superintending Engineer (South)
vide letter dated 11.06.2019. Thereafter
a reminder was issued on 26.06.2019. As there was no response, a hearing was
scheduled on 03.09.2019.
3. During
the hearing Sh. Arun Shah added that the association had to make a lot of
efforts to get the road repaired around six years ago. On interacting with Sh. Mohal Lal, S.E.,
Nodal Officer and Sh. Madal Lal Azad, SE (South-East),it transpired that Sh.
Sarvan Kumar, SE (South) maintenance was the concerned officer who informed
that the ownership of the road in question is with South DMC not PWD.
4. In
view of this, Commissioner, SDMC was impleaded and Engineer-in-Chief, PWD was
removed from the array of respondents. The
position was also clarified by Executive Engineer South Division Road-2 vide
letter dated 09.08.2019.
5. Vide
email dated 27.09.2019, SDMC submitted a status report as per which the road
was inspected by the area JE (Maintenance) and found that the road from C-1
(Jeet Singh Marg) to C-4 (Dhalao) is under the jurisdiction of PWD Delhi. Whereas from C-5 to C-12 is under the
jurisdiction of Ward No. 61-S EE-M-S-I, SDMC, which is made of Cement Concrete
long time back which is eroded all over.
However, there is no pot hole as alleged in the complaint. After
receiving the complaint, the department has repaired the
eroded portion. Photographs after repair
of the said road were also attached.
6. During
the hearing, Sh. Santosh Kumar Pathak, JE, SDMC, Ward 61(S) stated that as per
the availability of fund the road repair work has been done. The re-laying of concrete however will be
done after receipt of requisite budget.
7. The
respondent as well as the complainant may make efforts to get the funds from various
sources including MPLADS and try to reconstruct the road as soon as possible,
so that the Members of the Association who are persons with deafness and also
Senior Citizens do not feel discriminated as I have personally seen that the
other neighbouring roads/ lanes are well maintained. Unavailability of funds, coming into force of
Model Code of Conduct due to some elections, etc.should not be cited as the
reason for not providing the facility of a good road for use by the Members of
the Association.
8. This
court be informed of the action taken in the matter within 3 months from the
date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act which
reads as under:
“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 complaint is disposed of.
10. Given
under my hand and the seal of the Court this15thday of
October, 2019.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for
Persons with Disabilities
Here is the digitally signed Order:
