Santosh Kumar Vs. Secretary, Deptt of Health & Family Welfare | Case No. 4/1118/2015-Wel/CD/3492-93 | Dated: 22.12.2017

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. 4/1118/2015-Wel/CD/3492-93                      Dated: 22.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Santosh Kumar,

C/o Sh. Pappu Jain,

1/1, laxmi Market, Aram Park,

Khureji, Laxmi Nagar,

Jain PG, Delhi-110092                                             ................ Complainant

                                          Versus                          

The Secretary,

Deptt. Of Health & Family Welfare,

GNCTD, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,

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

ORDER

          The above named complainant vide his complaint dated 31.08.2015 received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 21.09.2015 submitted that he applied for Disability Certificate in Multiple Disability Board of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi.  As per the complainant he has congenital blue dot and Sutural cataract in both his eyes and Diskinetic cerebral palsy in his right hand due to which he can hardly perform any household work including writing.  As GTB Hospital had no neurological facility, he was referred to IHBAS Hospital.  He alleged that during assessment, he was mentally harassed and sarcastically mocked.  He was doubted and his case was under estimated ignoring his problem.  He alleged prejudice and discrimination in gross violation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 24.09.2015.  Health & Family Welfare Department sought the comments of IHBAS Hospital.  IHBAS, Hospital vide letter dated 21.10.15 inter-alia informed that the Neurological condition of Focal Dystonia or writer’s cramp was very mild and was not contributing to any motor weakness leading to measurable disability.  The complainant was examined in different centres, AIIMS, GB Pant and Ganga Ram Hospial.  The same professional opinion was provided by the experts of those hospitals.  The hospital also stated that there was no mention of disability due to Dystonia in the disability assessment gazette.  It was also alleged that the complainant pressurised the treating Doctors to give 30% or more disability which would help him in the Civil Services Exam.  The hospital denied any harassment meted due to the complainant. 

3.      This court suggested to Department of Health & Family Welfare to appoint an Appellate Board. After exchange of a number of correspondence, the Health & Family Welfare Department asked Medical Superintendent, Lok Nayak Hospital to constitute an Appellate Board of 3 doctors for reassessment of the category of disability of the complainant as he was not satisfied with their comments/report of IHBAS Hospital and reconsider the issue of disability certificate, based on Board’s report vide letter dated 28.03.2016.

4.      A hearing was scheduled on 24.10.2017.  While the complainant did not appear, Ms. Manju Handa, Dy. Secretary on behalf of respondent informed that the complainant was also requested to contact Director, GB Pant Hospital for reassessment by Appellate Board of 3 doctors vide letter dated 08.09.2016.  However, it appeared that complainant did not visit that hospital. 

5.      It was observed that the last communication from the complainant was received on 06.11.2015.  This Court also tried to contact him on his given telephone No. 9910298747, which was switched off.  On the date of writing this order on 13.12.2017 also the said telephone number was switched off/temporarily out of service.

6.      Director, GB Pant Hospital was advised to arrange reassessment of the complainant as requested by H&FW Department and if eligible, disability certificate may be issued in respect of the complainant.  It was also made clear in the record of proceedings dated 27.10.2017 that if no response from the complainant was received by 30.11.2017, the complaint would be treated as closed.  The Record of Proceedings dated 27.10.2017 was sent to the complainant at his given address by speed post which has not been received back.  In compliance with the advice of this Court, GB Pant Hospital vide letter dated 15.11.2017 advised the complainant to report to Disability Cell, GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi between 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. with the relevant record on 16^th/17^th.11. 2017 or on 18.11.2017 between 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.  The hospital also found his mobile number switched off.  No response what so ever has been received from the complainant till date.  In view of this the complaint is closed and disposed off.

7.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of December, 2017.     

                                                                                               (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

View the digitally signed PDF Order here:

Kapil Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Secretary, Deptt of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. | Case No. 4/1014/2015-Wel/CD/3499-3502 | Dated: 22.12.2017

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. 4/1014/2015-Wel/CD/3499-3502                                Dated: 22.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal

President, Federation of Disabled Rights, Delhi

G-Block, Basti Vikas Kaendra,

Mangol Puri, New Delhi                                                                 .............Petitioner

Versus

Secretary

Department of Health & Family Welfare

9^th Level, Delhi Secretariat

I.P.Estate, New Delhi -2

Director

Directorate of Employment

5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi                                                               .............Respondent

ORDER 

          Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal filed a complaint dated 08.07.2015 in the Office of Chief Commissioner of Disability, Government of India which was forwarded to this office.  The complaint pertained to various demands for implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 with focus on following points: -

                     I.        Ensure rehabilitation of persons with disabilities through Vocational Rehabilitation Centres DGE& T, Ministry of Labour and employment, Government of India and compliance of 3 % reservation in government services.

            II.        Directorate of Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi should simplify process of disability assessment and issuance of certificates based on the guidelines and Gazette Notification Regd. DL 33004/99 (Extraordinary) Part-II, section-I, June 13^th 2001, issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India.

           III.        Notification on reservation for job seekers should be ensured by Special Employment Exchange, Directorate of Employment, Government of NCT of Delhi under different special employment exchanges. 

3.    The matter was taken up vide letter dated 20.07.2015 with the Department of Social Welfare, Health and Family Welfare Department, Directorate of Employment, Government of NCT of Delhi.  As no response was received despite reminders dated 10.08.2015, 03.09.2015, a hearing was scheduled 12.10.2015 and the concerned Departments were directed to submit Action Taken Report on the issues flagged by the Complainant.  Action Taken Reports were submitted by Directorate of Social Welfare, Health and Family Welfare and Directorate of Employment, Government of NCT of Delhi. On the instructions of Health and Family Welfare Department, various hospitals registered for issuance of Disability Certificate also submitted reports about the status of each hospital separately.
 4.    The Complainant appeared before the State Commissioner on 07.12.2017 in connection with some issues. During the meeting, this case was also discussed.  He submitted that since the replies from the respondents have been received, the case may be closed.  He was advised to send an e-mail to this effect and if the e-mail was not received by 12.12.2017, case would be closed.
 5.    As no email has been received from the complainant till date; the complaint is closed and disposed of.
 6.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22^nd day of December, 2017.

(T.D. DHARIYAL)

STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Nanak Chand Vs. The DCP (West District), Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police | Case No. 4/1439/2016-Wel./CD/ 3483-84 | Dated:22/12/2017

P.S. Dhama Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr | Case No. 4/1348/2016-Wel./CD/3366-68 | Dated:16.12.2017

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. 4/1348/2016-Wel./CD/3366-68                                    Dated:16.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. P.S. Dhama,

President, Joint Front of PwD & OBC Teacher’s Association Delhi,

G-63, MCD Colony Dhaka, Kingsway Camp,

New Delhi-110009                                                                 ……… Complainant     

                                                                     

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, SPMC Civic Centre,

New Delhi-110002                                                                      ....…Respondent

The Director,

Central Establishment Department,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,

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

            

ORDER

       

                  The above named complainant, a person with 40 % locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 19.07.2016 submitted that he is working as Principal in School of North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC).  He was transferred out under some conspiracy on 03.11.2015.  The entire staff and parents requested for cancellation of his transfer.  However, the then Dy.Director(Education) relieved him on 04.12.2015 and suspended him without giving him any opportunity.  He was again suddenly transferred on 18.07.2017 and was relieved on the same day. He further submitted that he is entitled to be transferred to a place close to his house as per the instructions. However, he was being discriminated against and harassed.  He also submitted that he had filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and this Court as his grievances were not redressed by the senior officers of  MCD.  Because of his complaint, the Corporation had to fill the back log of reserved vacancies in the post of Principal.  He also alleged discrimination in the matter of look after charge and Current Duty Charge on the ground of his disability.   He requested that his relieving order dated 18.08.2016 should be set aside. 

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 05.08.2016 followed by reminders dated 10.10.2016 and 29.11.2016.  The respondent submitted an Interim Report on 05.11.2016 and stated that on the basis of complaints of two female teachers, a memo dated 29.06.2016 was issued to the complainant.  After considering the facts of the matter, the competent authority ordered his transfer immediately to a boys school.  He was therefore, transferred and relieved to MCPS Wazirpur Industrial Area, C-II vide order dated 18.07.2016.  The complainant was suspended on 04.01.2016 for disobedience of official orders, misconduct and obstruction of official work while working as Principal in MCPS Dheerpur.  He was later on reinstated and posted in MCPS, Parmanand Colony on 14.01.2016.  As regards his promotion to the post of School Inspector,  the respondent submitted that it was in the ambit of Central Establishment Department / North DMC.  All his representations were forwarded to DDE(Admn.) Education Deptt., North DMC for further necessary action. The said post is a Group A Post.

3.               The respondent vide letter dated 14.02.2017 added that the Look After Charge (LAC) of School Inspectors is purely a temporary arrangement to deal with the shortfall of school Inspectors for the smooth functioning of the Department. Under the North DMC, the charge of LAC has been assigned to senior most eligible headmasters as all the School Inspectors-LAC working with North DMC are senior  Headmasters than the complainant.  The EDMC or SDMC have their own arrangement. Seniority of Headmasters of three DMCs is common and is being finalized.  As regards request of the complainant for transfer to EDMC, the same is done on mutual basis which  was under the jurisdiction of Director Local Bodies. The respondent further informed that a departmental enquiry was pending against the complainant and his promotion to the post of SI can be considered only after the enquiry in the case is over and the RRs to the post are notified.

4.               A copy of the reply of the respondent was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 06.03.2017 at his address – G-63, MCD Colony Dhaka, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi followed by  reminder dated 02.08.2017 vide which he was advised to  submit his comments if any, by 10.08.2017 failing which the case would  be closed. Till date no response whatsoever has been received from the complainant.  In view of this, the complaint is closed.

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13^th day  of December, 2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                            Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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

Kamal Kant Aggarwal Vs. Chairman Navyug School Education Society & Anr | Case No. 4/970/2015-Wel./CD/3415-17 | 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. 4/970/2015-Wel./CD/3415-17                                      Dated:15.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Kamal Kant Aggarwal

Room No. 210, Electrical Block

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059                                            ....................Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Naresh Kumar

The Chairman

Navyug School Education Society,

3^rd Floor, Palika Kendra

Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001                                          ............Respondent

Smt. Vidushi Chaturvedi

The Director

Navyug School Educational Society

Head Office, N.P. Primary School,

Hanuman Road, New Delhi -110001                                             ...........Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 20.04.2015 submitted that he participated in recruitment process with roll no. NTWTH-1619 for the post of TGT (Work Experience) in Navyug School Education Society (NSES) as a candidate with disability.  NSES accepted the order of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities in case No. 331/1011/09-10 that 5 vacancies were for PH Category.

2.  Although he had secured 49.8% marks and he was the only candidate with disability, yet he was not given the appointment.  He therefore, requested to direct the respondent to appoint him without any delay and with benefit of seniority and back wages. 

3.  The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 08.05.2015 followed by reminder dated 19.06.2015. 

4.  The Respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2015 informed that during the hearings before the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities, it was submitted that the complaint would be considered for appointment as and when vacancies of TGT (Work Experience) would become available against direct recruitment quota as the RRs provided for filling the post of TGT 20% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion.  There were 8 sanctioned posts of TGT (Work Experience) and all were filled up. Therefore, the case of the complainant would be considered for appointment on availability of vacancy against the direct recruitment quota. 

5.   The case was heard by the then Commissioner on 12.08.2015, 07.09.2015, 12.10.2015 and 10.12.2015.  After a number of exchange of correspondence, the respondent vide letter dated 15.03.2017 informed that the competent authority had approved the appointment of the complainant as TGT (Work Experience) against a vacancy reserved for persons with disabilities during the recruitment drive 2008-09 subject to completion of formalities. The office order dated 20.02.2017 also mentioned that the complainant would be given notional seniority on the post of TGT (Work Experience) equivalent to his immediate junior.  However, he will be given financial benefits from the date of his appointment/joining.

7.    The complainant vide his e-mail dated 16.04.2017 informed that he had not yet been given final appointment and therefore his case may not be closed till his final appointment.

 8.    As the complaint was pending for more than two years and there was no further communication from the complainant, he was contacted on his given mobile No. 8802303439 on 08.12.2017.  He informed that he had been given the offer of appointment.  However, as his pay was not protected and he has joined a post in DRDO, he did not wish to join NSES. 

9.   In view of the above, the complaint is closed and disposed off, accordingly.

10.    However I am constrained to observe that the concerned authorities took unusually long time to decide a matter involving the entitlement of a person with disability despite the directions/observations of statutory authorities and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in his favour. The case deserved to be fast tracked and a decision taken as expeditiously as possible.  On the contrary it took 8 long years.  This is a case which compels one to get an impression that there is too much resistance amongst the functionaries to extend even the legitimate entitlements and the right to persons with disabilities.  It is unfortunate that a person with disability had to struggle for such a long period of time and was made to run from pillar to post. In such a scenario, many a hapless person with disabilities may prefer to forego their entitlements in the face of such resistance as the trade off would be too much to bear.  It is expected that with the coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 from 19.04.2017 which also has provisions for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or Regulations made there under, all concerned authorities/functionaries shall avoid situations as observed in this case and make efforts to comply with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and be more sensitive towards persons with disabilities.

10.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13^th day of December, 2017.

(T.D. DHARIYAL)

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Shubhachu Kishor Vs. Sunny | Case No. 4/1115/2015-Wel./CD/3377-78 | Dated: 13 Dec 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. 4/1115/2015-Wel./CD/3377-78                                    Dated: 13.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Shubhachu Kishor

15/18, Ist Floor, Old Rajender Nagar

New Delhi -60                                                                             …….... Petitioner     

                                                                     

Versus

Sh. Sunny

52/22, Old Rajender Nagar

Opposite to Vajiram & Ravi Instt.

New Delhi -60                                                                            …….... Respondent   

ORDER

                  The above named complainant, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide his complaint received on 22.09.2013 submitted that he was cheated of Rs.2000/- by a person named Sunny, broker.  He requested for recovery and return of Rs. 2000/.  The complaint was taken up vide communication dated 22.09.2015 followed by reminder dated 02.11.2015 directing Sh. Sunny to appear.  He appeared before the then Commissioner on 22.09.2015. Thereafter the matter was taken up with Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District vide communication dated 16.11.2015.

2.  Additional DCP, Central District vide letter dated 16.11.2015 informed that as per the report of SHO, Rajender Nagar, during the course of enquiry, the complainant was asked to produce the documents in support of his complaint but he was unable to provide any document. Sh. Sunny was also interrogated and denied any transaction with the complainant.  He also refused to give any statement.  In absence of any documents related to the alleged transactions, no Police case was made.  However, the contact number of the beat staff was provided to the complainant and the concerned beat staff has also been directed to keep in touch with the complainant. 

3.  The Action Taken Report of the Police was sent to the complainant who vide his another complaint dated 3.2.2016 reiterated his allegations which was also referred to DCP, Central District vide letter dated 9.2.2016.  SHO, Rajender Nagar informed that fresh complaint was identical to the earlier one which was duly enquired and the report was submitted.  Therefore, no separate police enquiry was needed. 

4.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the fact that there are no supporting documents in connection with the alleged transactions.  The law enforcing agency has also indicated its inability to proceed further in the absence of any evidence.  Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in the matter.  The case is accordingly closed.

4.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13^th day of December, 2017.

        

(T.D. DHARIYAL)

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities