Vijay Nath Mishra Vs. DCP (North West), Delhi Police | Case No. 4/ 1724/2017-Wel/CD/3841-42 | Dated:12.01.2018

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/ 1724/2017-Wel/CD/3841-42                                  Dated:12.01.2018

In the matter of:

Mr. Vijay Nath Mishra

S/o Parasnath Mishra,

M.B. Road, Shakarpur,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                  .……… Complainant     

                                                                      Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,

North West District,

Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.                                                              …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:           09.01.2018

Present                           Sh. Vijay Nath Mishra, Complainant.

                                          None on behalf of the respondent.

            

ORDER

                The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 13.07.2017 submitted that  he purchased a plot measuring 150 yards, khasra No. 1030, village Qadi Vihar, Delhi from Sh. Anand Swaroop S/o Sh. Nepal Singh on 28.07.2006.  He also got work done on the plot from time to time.  On 22.06.2017, three unknown persons came to his house.  One of them mentioned his name as Dharmender of Alipur.  He asked him to meet him in the house of Sh. Sudhir Rana with the papers of the plot.  He threatened to kill him if he did not do so.  He wants to do construction work in his plot.  However, he is afraid of those persons.  In June, 2016 one Sh. Jagdish, S/o Sh. Mahender also harassed him and claimed ownership of the plot.  He had filed complaints with S.H.O. (Swaroop Nagar), Delhi.

2.      Reiterating his earlier submissions,  the complainant vide his letter dated 17.11.2017  added that the S.H.O. (Swaroop Nagar), Sh. Bharat Ram Meena did not give much attention to the matter.  The complainant, therefore, requested for an early intervention.

3.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.07.2017 followed by reminder dated 16.11.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 09.01.2018.

4.      During the hearing on 09.01.2018, the complainant submitted that the case falls under the jurisdiction of Dy. Commissioner of Police (North West District), Ashok Vihar whereas the notice of hearing has been sent to DCP(North District), Civil Lines.  This probably is the reason why the respondent has not been represented in the hearing.  Reiterating his submissions, the complainant stated that the vigilance enquiry conducted by the PG Cell, North West District has already established that the plot belongs to him.  However, because of insufficient support of Police, he is not able to carry out any kind of construction activity in his plot of land measuring 150 Sq. Yards.  He requested that the DCP (North West) may be advised  to provide police personnel to enable him to carry out some construction work in the plot as Sh. Dharmender threatened him and the concerned police officials do not provide him the required support.

5       From the record it is observed that the vigilance enquiry conducted by Inspector (North West) concluded that the complainant is in possession of plot measuring 150 Sq. Yards bearing khasra no. 1030, A- Block, Qadi Vihar, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.  ACP, PG Cell, North West  District in his remarks dated 31.08.2017 also recorded that the S.I. Sajjan Singh of Police Station , Swaroop Nagar conducted the enquiry in a lackadaisical manner.  It supports the contention of the complainant that the local Police personnel have not been providing him the required assistance and support.  Complainant also submitted that fed up with the law enforcing agency and the attitude of the members of the society,  he has approached the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Rohini for relief.

6.      Section 7 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for protection of abuse, violence and exploitation of the persons with disabilities and sub-section 4 of Section 7 casts an obligation on a Police Officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of  abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability to extend necessary support and protection to such a person with disability.  In this regard, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi  vide Circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017  has directed all the DCPs to take necessary action to make the Inquiry Officers aware of the provisions the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to ensure its effective implementation. 

7.      Notwithstanding the fact that the complainant has already approached Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Rohini), DCP (North  West), Ashok Vihar is advised to extend necessary support to the complainant to enable him to carry out the construction activity in his plot.  It may also be ensured that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or exploited by any person and his rights are not infringed.

8.      In the light of the above position, the complaint is disposed of.

9.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12^th day of January,  2018.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ishwar Kumar Jha Vs. DCP (West District) Delhi Police | Case No. 4/966/2015/Wel./CD/3662-63 | Dated: 02.01.2018

              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. 4/966/2015/Wel./CD/3662-63                     Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Ishwar Kumar Jha &

Sh. Ashish Kumar Jha

H. No. 81-B, Deep Vihar, Vikas Nagar,

Hastasal, New Delhi-110059                                  ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus     

                    

The Dy. Commissioner of Police

Delhi Police, West District,

Police Station Rajouri Garden,

Delhi-110028.                                                       ………...…Respondent

                 Order

The above named complainants, persons with blindness who are brothers vide their complaint dated 09.04.2015 received from the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, on 22.04.2015 alleged that their neighbours Kripa Nand Jha and 16 others often passed derogate comments regarding their disability and insulted them.

2.      The matter was taken up with the respondent vide notice 05.05.2015 followed by reminders dated 04.08.2015 and 08.09.2015.  Vide his reply dated 26.10.2015 the respondent informed that an enquiry revealed that both the parties were of quarrelsome nature and in search of occasions for quarrels to each other.  The alleged Sh. Ramesh Chander had also filed complaints against the complainant’s family.  The allegations made in the complaints were related to comments on the disability of the complainant.  All the allegations were non-cognizable.  However, action u/s. 107/150 Cr. P.C. had been taken against both the parties to maintain peace.  No police action was warranted.  Vide another letter dated 18.11.2015, the respondent stated that since no cognizable offense is made out, Hon’ble National Human Rights Commission had also closed the complaint on 25.03.2015.  Copy of the report received from the respondent was forwarded to the complainants on 25.02.2016 for comments.  However, no reply/comment has been received till date. 

3.      The complaint is therefore closed and disposed off accordingly.

4.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 02nd day of January, 2018.     

                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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 8^th 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.

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  07^th day of  September, 2017.          

                                                                                      (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities