Ram Kumar Rai Vs. DCP(Central District) Delhi Police | Case No. 594/1111/2018/10/1097-1099 | Dated: 01.03.2019

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

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. 594/1111/2018/10/1097-1099                    Dated: 01.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Ram Kumar Rai,

4/2595, Beadon Pura,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.                     ……………..Complainant

Versus

The Dy.Commissioner of Police,

(Central District),

Police Station Daryaganj Complex,

New Delhi-110002.                                            ..…………..Respondent

Date of hearing:    26.02.2019

Present:            Sh Ram Kumar Rai Complainant alongwith Sh. Deepak Dewan Advocate,

                                 Sh. Satyapal, Inspector, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

 The above named complainant, a person with 88% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 05.10.2018 submitted that he runs a PCO booth near Karol Bagh Police Station allotted to him by MCD under  the quota reserved for persons with disabilities.  He learnt that Sh. Jang Bahadur, a person with disability who had also applied for a PCO booth, was not allotted the same.  He also came to know that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi in connivance with some employees of MCD had got the PCO booths meant for persons with disabilities transferred in the name of his relatives and friends based on forged documents.  Most of such PCO booths have been allotted at the residential address of Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi.  He discussed this matter with the Viklang Sahara Samiti and a civil case has been filed in the Tis Hazari Court which is pending.  He also informed some television channels about the PCO booth scam.   Scrutiny of the papers in respect of Sh. Jang Bahadur revealed that the PCO booth which was allotted in the name of Sh. Jang Bahadur was being run by Sh. Nand Lal Ahuja, who claimed that Sh. Jang Bahadur had sold the PCO booth to him.  The fact as per the complainant is that neither Sh. Jang Bahadur sold the PCO booth nor he can do so as per the rules. 

2.      The complainant alleged that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi has got a number of PCO booths of disability quota allotted to the members of his family and friends and has given them on rent to those who are not persons with disabilities @ Rs. 50,000/- per month.  The complainant has further alleged that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi has offered money to him and Sh. Jang Bahadur for withdrawing their complaints / cases failing which, he has threatened them of dire consequences.  The complainant therefore requested that appropriate action be taken against Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and his associates and he be provided police protection.

3.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent, who vide letter dated 16.01.2019 informed that:

“An enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/ Karol Bagh.  During the course of the enquiry, it is revealed that in this regard in the complaint of Sh. Jang Bahadur, S/o Sh. Sodan Singh, R/o I*-27, Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi a case vide FIR No. 199/13 dated 25.08.2013 u/s 420/468/471/474/34 IPC has already been registered at PS Karol Bagh.  The present complainant is also a witness in this case.  The accused Vishnu Kumar is reported to be the key person in to the matter.  Co-accused namely Nand Lal Ahuja was arrested in this case on 27.08.2018.  In pursuance of NBW and charge sheet against him has also been filed in the Court.  Accused Vishnu Kumar is also not cooperating in the investigation and deliberately avoiding to join the investigation in the case.  Hence proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC has been initiated against absconder / accused.  Anticipatory bail application of the accused Vishnu Kumar has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Court.

Further as far as the allegations regarding, threat, section 506 IPC has already been added in the case.  Statement of the complainant Sh. Ram Kumar Rai has been recorded in which he expressed his satisfaction over the action taken by police.  Further investigation of this case is in progress.  All possible efforts are being made to arrest the accused persons Vishnu Kumar.”

4.      Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing on 25.01.2019 and during the hearing Sh. Narayan Ojha, Sub Inspector submitted a status report dated 19.01.2019 forwarded by ACP, Karol Bagh.  As per the report, the allegations in the FIR, against the individuals involved in this complaint namely, Sh. Vishnu Kumar and Sh. Nand Lal Ahuja who were involved in getting the PCO booths allotted to persons with disabilities transferred in the name of other persons based on forged documents, have been found to be true.  While Sh. Vishnu Kumar is right now absconding, Sh. Nand Lal Ahuja was arrested on 27.08.2018 and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court.  As Sh. Vishnu Kumar is not cooperating in the investigation, proceedings under section 82 of CrPC have been issued.  Section 506 (2) IPC has also been added in the case.  As investigation of the case is in progress and all efforts are being made to arrest Sh. Vishnu Kumar and the matter is also sub judice in various courts, no purpose would be served by keeping this complaint pending and it may be filed.

5.      The complainant who was accompanied by Sh. Deepak Dewan, Advocate, submitted that there are about 13 more PCO booths allotted to persons with disabilities but have illegally been transferred / mutated in the name of persons without disabilities.  As the complainant had not submitted the names of allottees with disabilities and the supporting documents, Sh. Deepak Dewan, advocate stated that he would file a brief synopsis alongwith relevant documents by 04.02. 2019.

6.      The complainant submitted that the people who are involved in the illegal transfer of PCO booths continue threatening him of dire consequences, if he did not withdraw the complaint.  They have also given him life threat. The complainant submitted the synopsis dated 30.01.2019 containing the names of the accused persons and those, whose PCO booths under the quota for persons with disabilities were got transferred / mutated by the said Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi in connivance with the MCD officials whose names have also been mentioned in the synopsis.

7.      During the hearing on 26.02.2019, the complainant who appeared with Sh. Jang Bahadur reiterated his written submissions and added that he and Sh. Jang Bahadur are being frightened by Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and others.  The complainant submitted that he fears for his life and requested that he be provided police protection.

8.      As per the status report dated 19.01.2019 submitted by ACP, Karol Bagh the complaint is listed for hearing in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court for declaring Sh.  Vishnu  Kumar   Sindhi as proclaimed offender since he has not been cooperating in the investigation and is absconding.   Sh. Satpal, Inspector informed that as  Sh. Jang Bahadur is a resident of I-27, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II near Rohini Sector-5, Delhi, any action with regard to police protection to him will be taken by the concerned Police station of that District.         As regards, Sh. Ram Kumar Rai, Karol Bagh Police Station will take appropriate action.

9.      The matter with regard to the allegation that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and others got the PCO booths allotted under the quota of persons with disabilities illegally transferred / mutated in connivance with MCD officials has been registered as Case No.760/1083/2019/02 based on the synopsis and taken up with the concerned authorities separately.  

 10.   In the light of the above, the respondent is advised to take appropriate action to ensure security of Sh. Ram Kumar Rai.  As regards the security of Sh. Jang Bahadur, DCP, Rohini District, Police Station Begam Pur Complex, Delhi-85  under whose jurisdiction Police Station Vijay Vihar falls, is advised  to ensure that Sh. Jang Bahadur, S/o Sh. Seodan Singh is not physically harmed by Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and others.

11.    The case is disposed of.

12.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 1^st day of March, 2019.

           (T.D. Dhariyal)

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Rohini District, Police Station, Begam Pur Complex, Delhi-85.

Ruby Mishra Vs. Chairman New Delhi Municipal Council & Head Granthi, Bangla Sahib Gurudwara | Case No. 4/1628/2017-Wel./CD/4045-47 | Dated:31.01.2018

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. 4/1628/2017-Wel./CD/4045-47                                         Dated:31.01.2018

In the matter of:

Smt. Ruby Mishra

Shop No-8, Bangla Sahaib Gurudwara,

VMCA, New Delhi-110001                                                ……................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         

The Chairman,

New Delhi Municipal Council,

Palika Kendra Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001                                                              ...………...…Respondent No.1

Head Granthi

Bangla Sahib Gurudwara

YMCA, New Delhi-110001                                                ………………Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing  24.01.2018

Present:                   Smt. Ruby Mishra, Complainant.

Mr. N.L. Chawla, Jt. Director (Enforcement),   Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively.

ORDER

           

          The above named complainant, a person with 52% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 04.05.2017 submitted that she is a social worker and she sells Tea, Bread Pakora on a small space at Bangla Sahib Gurudwara near YMCA.  The respondent no. 2 causes obstruction and she is being harassed for the last one year and gets her articles removed.  She is also threatened of police action.  The complainant also alleged malpractice and added that the small shop is the only source of her livelihood.  She has further submitted that many other people sell items from that area which belongs to NDMC.  While they are not disturbed, she is being harassed although she has a written order of Chairman, NDMC.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 03.07.2017.  Respondent No. 2 vide reply dated 03.07.2017 denied the allegations and submitted inter-alia that there are illegal constructions around the site of the Gurdwara.  Bad elements assemble near the shop and create nuisance for the visitors.  They are also using gas cylinder which is hazardous for the pilgrims visiting Gurudwara every day.  The Complainant has also occupied an area in an unauthorised manner.  Therefore, a letter was sent to the Chairman, NDMC and was approached for removal of the encroachment.  If the encroachment was not stopped the whole area including the Toilet Site of the Gurudwara would be occupied by unauthorized occupants. DSGMC and Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib is receiving complaints all the time even from High Dignitaries and Advocates etc. who are visiting the Gurudwara regarding obstruction and nuisance created by unauthorized occupants.

3.      Respondent No. 2 further submitted that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 under which the complaint has been filed by the complainant, no where mentions that the persons with disabilities will occupy the public premises, open shop and start business in an unauthorized manner.  The complainant is approaching this Court for sympathy and she may not be allowed to run the tea shop near Gurudwara.  There is no threat by Gurudwara Head Granthi for taking away the shop material of the complainant and deprivation of the rights of persons with disabilities.

4.      During the hearing on 24.01.2018, the complainant stated that she continues to sell the items from her stall.  However, the Health and Enforcement Department of NDMC had taken away her articles and imposed heavy fine, which should be reduced.

5.  The Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 reiterated the written submissions and added that the Head Granthi of Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Gyani Ranjeet Singh has not removed any items of the vendors including the complainant.  Gurdwara is concerned only about safety and security of the visitors.

6.      The representative of NDMC submitted that Govt. of NCT of Delhi has given clearance for constitution of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) and a meeting has been scheduled on 24.01.2018 for implementing the orders of the GNCTD.  Once the TVC is constituted, the matter of the vendors with disabilities in NDMC area will be decided early by the TVC.

7.      The issues concerning the plight of vendors with disabilities in the NCT of Delhi have been discussed  while disposing of the complaints of a large number of persons with disabilities in case No. 4/1233/2016-Wel/CD.  Vide order dated 27.07.2017 in that case, one of the recommendations of this court is that 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 items.

 

8.      It is observed that the complainant applied for Tehbazari site vide application dated 30.11.2007 and has been vending since the year 2000.  She is thus, covered under para 5(i) of the said order dated 27.07.2017.  Therefore, as recommended in that order, she should not be disturbed and allowed to earn her livelihood by selling various articles. A copy of the order dated 27.07.2017 is enclosed with order for ready reference. 

9.      It is also observed that the complainant is in the list of 100 persons with disabilities who have applied for certificate of vending in NDMC area.  It is expected that TVC will decide her case considering her disability and gender. 

10.    The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

11.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 31^st day of January, 2018.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encl:  Copy of order dated 27.07.2017

Hakim Singh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1690/2017-Wel./CD/ 3413-14 | Dated: 15.12.2017

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005

[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1690/2017-Wel./CD/ 3413-14                                   Dated: 15.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Hakim Singh,

R/o C1/384, Gali No.-19.

Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093.                                                       …………… Complainant      

                                                                     

Versus

The Commissioner,

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

419 Udyog Sadan,

Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi-110096.                                                                              ……...…Respondent

Date of Hearing : 13.12.2017

Present:       Sh. Hamim Singh, Complainant

Sh. A.K. Singh, Asstt. Commissioner, Sh. Deepak Panchal, Licensing Inspector on behalf of EDMC.

            

ORDER

       

                  The above named complainant, a person with above 40 % locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 28.02.2017 received from Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 12.07.2017 submitted that he is a poor person with disability.   He was allotted a Chalta Firta PCO by Delhi Government financed by the Delhi SC/ST/OBC, Minorities and Handicapped Development Corporation Ltd.  in 2004.  He was being troubled by East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) Officials and requested to intervene and ensure that he was allowed to ply his PCO booth and make his living from the same.

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 22.08.2017 followed by reminder dated 31.10.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 13.12.2017.

3.               During the hearing on 13.12.2017, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that the mobile PCO booth which was seized, has since been released after payment of requisite fine.  However, he is not able to operate and conduct any business for the last three months.  Thus, he has been deprived of his livelihood and he requested for immediate relief.

4.               The representatives of the respondent filed a written submission dated 13.12.2017 which reads as under:

                  “It is stated that the issue has been examined and it has been found that Sh. Hakim Singh was selling tobacco items at the exit gate of Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had directed EDMC in WPC No. 1346/2015 and CM 35024/2016 dated 02.02.2017 regarding alarming level of Air Pollution at Anand Vihar and its surrounding area to conduct massive encroachment removal drive and to remove all the encroachments from Anand Vihar Bus terminal, footage bridge and its adjoining areas with the assistance of local Police. In compliance   of the above directions issued by the Hon’ble Court massive encroachment removal programmes were carried out at Anand Vihar in the supervision of sh. A.K. Singh, Asstt. Commissioner of the area.

                  During the programme, all temporary encroachments were removed from footpath, service roads and foot over bridge at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal between entry and exit point of ISBT, Anand Vihar, Delhi except members of case no. W.P. (C) No. 5617 of 2016 titled as “Mahila Howkers Vs DM Shahdara and Others” wherein  Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has directed not to take any coercive steps against the members of the petitioner / association.

                  It is submitted that the complainant sh. Hakim Singh was not a petitioner in the above case.  Moreover, he was not sitting at the permitted stretch.  He was an unauthorised hawker /vender in Anand Vihar Area.  He used to sale gutka, bidi and other tobacco items in front of Anand Vihar Railway Station exit gate in his vehicle/van.  His vehicle / van was standing on the metalled road causing traffic congestion leading  to air pollution.  He was always creating hindrance in Departmental Encroachment removal drive and create nuisance. 

                  In view of the above it is stated that Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Commissioner was discharging his duties and allegations of Sh. Hakim Singh is fabricated, false and baseless and hence it is requested that the above Show Cause Notice may be dropped.”

5.               The representatives of the respondent also showed a recorded video showing the complainant lying under the tyre of a truck during one office encroachment removal drive. Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Commissioner added that the drive to remove the encroachment from the area is a continuous process in compliance with the directions of  Hon’ble High Court  and it is not possible to allow the complainant to operate his mobile PCO  booth.  Only those persons who were the petitioners in the above mentioned W.P. before the Hon’ble High Court have been allowed to do squatting in the earmarked area a sketch of which is mentioned in the said Order dated 31.01.2017.

6.                The complainant, who is a person with disability states that he has no other source of livelihood and  he himself used to conduct the business through that mobile PCO booth, which the representative of the respondent confirmed to have seen him selling items himself.  Considering his situation, merely because the complainant was not the one of the petitioners before the Hon’ble High Court, he should not be deprived of his only source of livelihood and the concerned authorities should consider his case with compassion. 

7.               In the light of the above, the respondent is advised to allow the complainant squat from his mobile PCO booth which was allotted to him by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in 2004,  from a spot within the identified area.  The complainant assures that he will not sell any restricted items and will peacefully earn his livelihood. 

                  Sh. Deepak Panchal, Licensing Inspector, EDMC will identify by 18^th December, 2017 the spot where the complainant can put his mobile PCO booth   and the complainant can start his business from the said date.  An ATR be submitted to this Court by 22.12.2017.  The ATR can also be submitted through email  at  comdis.delhi@nic.in.

8.               The complaint is disposed of in terms of the above advice / directions.

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15^th day  of December, 2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                             Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Daya Swaroop Vs. Executive Director DTTDC | Case No. 1(372)/ GRV/12-13/CD/1527-28 | Dated: 17.08.2017

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. 1(372)/ GRV/12-13/CD/1527-28                        Dated: 17.08.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Daya Swaroop,

H.No.-D-11, Gali No. I,

Sanjay Mohalla, Dhanewali Road,

Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.                                    .……… Complainant     

                                                         Versus

The Executive Director,

DTTDC, 2^nd Floor, ISBT,

Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.                                 …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:    11.08.2017                                     

Present                    Sh. Daya Swaroop, Complainant.

Sh. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Manager (Admn.)

on behalf of Respondent.

            

ORDER

              The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint received on 05.03.2013 submitted that he was allotted a PCO Booth at ISBT Kashmere Gate by DDA in the year 1983 and he was operating the booth since then from the same location.  However, due to the work of renovation of ISBT Kashmere Gate, the location of the PCO Booth has been changed and new shop allotted to him by draw of lots is near the toilet which is beyond the reach of customers.  The rent of the shop has been increased from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 556/- per month. The complainant has requested that a new shop may be allotted to him at a location with maximum foot fall.

2.           The matter was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 10.12.2013 and 24.12.2013. 

3.           In his detailed submission dated 21.09.2013, the complainant stated that the shop No. 29 allotted to him faces a pillar of about five feet width which covers the shop and the water from the toilets also enters the shop.   The prayer of the complainant is that if no other suitable shop could be allotted to him he may be allowed to operate from the old location (PCO Booth).  The complainant stated that shop no. 29 is not suitable for a blind person to carry business activities and that he had not unilaterally taken over the possession of Shop No. 29.  The complainant submitted that it was well within the knowledge of the officials that the complainant had taken over possession of shop no. 29 and was carrying business activities of selling water and beverages and other eatables.  In January 2014 the complainant was fined Rs.  5000/- for selling unauthorized items and for encroaching some area in the premises.  The complainant was served a notice on 21.02.2014 and threatened that he would be thrown out of shop no. 29 if he did not stop selling anything other than packaged water.  In such a situation it has become impossible for the complainant to earn his livelihood.  The complainant stated that he was suffering harassment at the hands of the officials and prayed that the complainant be allotted a shop at an appropriate location at a concessional license fee.  He also requested that he may not be harassed and permitted to trade additional items to earn his livelihood as the provision under Section 43  of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 provides for preference in setting up of business etc. to persons with disabilities.

4.           The respondent vide letter dated 11.02.2014 submitted that the complainant was allotted a PCO booth / kiosk at ISBT Kashmere Gate under PH Quota.  As a result of renovation of ISBT all the shops etc. were reallotted through draw of lots held on 17.10.2012.  The shop No. 68 at Arrival Block was offered to the complainant but he did not take over the possession of the offered  shop.  After his repeated requests  shop no. 29 was allotted to him in place of shop no. 68.  All the reasonable demands of the complainant had been accepted by the respondent in as much as that the complainant was permitted additional viable trade.  The demand of the complainant relating to allotment of shop no. 37 however was not acceptable as the shop was not meant for allotment to a PCO licensee. The electric supply was not disconnected on 30.12.12.  The meter was misplaced by the licensee in May 2013.   The respondent further stated that the complainant had encroached upon area not allotted to him which was encouraging other allottees to indulge in such illegal activities. Toilet water did not come inside his shop  as alleged by him.  The complainant had encroached upon area outside his allotted shop and stored items even upto wall of the toilet.  After renovation of ISBT out of 59 shops eleven shops have been allotted to persons with disabilities of whom three were persons with blindness.  A uniform rate of license fee of Rs. 285/- for a limited period of three years would be charged from old licensees of ISBT Kashmere Gate. The other shopkeepers have filed WP(C) 2572/2013 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi with a prayer not to allow their existing trades especially eatables and bottled mineral water to the PCO holder licencees. 

5.           After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities examined the complaint with reference to Section 40 & 43 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 which are reproduced as under:

Section 40: “The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall reserve not less than three per cent. in all poverty alleviation schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities”.

Section 43: “The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification frame schemes in favor of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates for- (a) House; (b) Setting up business; (c) Setting up of special recreation centers; (d) Establishment of special schools; (e) Establishment of research centers; (f) Establishment of factories”.

6.           It is observed from the copies of the notes of April 2014 from respondent’s file No. DTIDC/2012-13/307/Pt.File that the complainant had also presented his case before the then Minister of Road Transport and Highways, Shri Oscan Fernandes on 05.04.2014.  The facts of the case were presented to him by the respondent. A report was also  submitted by the respondent to the Lt. Governor of Delhi.

7.           As the final order had not been passed and there was no communication with respect to the matter, one more hearing was scheduled on 11.08.2017.

8.           During the hearing on 11.08.2017, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and stated that he should be re-allotted his original shop as he is not able to sell enough goods and earn his livelihood from the new shop i.e. Shop No. 29.  He however stated  that he is not being harassed by the authorities for selling other goods than the packaged water.   The complainant added that the policy to allot shops / PCO booths etc. to persons with disabilities was mooted by the Govt. to enable them to earn their livelihood.  Therefore there should be no need for re-allotment of the shops to persons with disabilities through tenders. 

9.           The representative of the respondent, in addition of reiterating the written submissions on record stated that the complainant had approached Tis Hazari Court who stayed the eviction of the complainant from shop No. 29 and directed that the ex-parte status quo order shall continue till next date of hearing vide  order dated 15.02.2017. Some other shop allottees with disabilities had also approached the Hon’ble High Court against their eviction from their respective shops on expiry of the agreement.  The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 22.07.2016 directed that no coercive action would be taken against the complainants in WP  (C) 6335/2016  in the matter of Seema Tiwari and Others Versus GNCT of Delhi and Others.  Hon’ble Civil Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Court directed the complainant to approach Hon’ble High Court as a similar matter was before the Hon’ble High Court.  The complainant has now filed W.P. (C) 6436/2017 in the Hon’ble High Court, the said Writ Petition has been listed for hearing on 16.08.2017. The representative of the respondent also submitted that the new allottees of the shops at ISBT, Kashmere Gate need to pay an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac to 2.00 lac per month whereas allottees with disabilities need to pay only Rs. 400 to 800/- per month.

10.         In the light of the facts and circumstance of this case, more particularly the fact that the complainant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi where similar petitions are also under consideration, the complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is closed.

11.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 17^th day of August, 2017.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities