Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. The Chairman, APMC & Anr. | Case No. 102/1083/2018/02/7077-79 | Dated: 03.05.2018

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. 102/1083/2018/02/7077-79                      Dated: 03.05.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,

S/o Late Sh. Suresh Aggarwal,

G-3/52 Model Town-III

Delhi-1100098.                                                       .……… Complainant     

                                                                     Versus

The Chairman,

APMC, New Sabzimandi, Azadpur,

Delhi-110052.                                                       …...…Respondent No.1

The Dy. Commissioner of Police

(North West District),

Police Station Ashok Vihar,

B-3-5, Deep Cinema Road,

Wazirpur, Phase II, Ashok Vihar,

Delhi-110052                                                          ...…..Respondent No. 2

        

ORDER

              The above named complainant, a person with 50% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 06.02.2018 submitted that he was allotted a booth at D-Block Parking near Shop No. D-403, APMC Azadpur under the quota of persons with disabilities.  The Officials of the APMC removed his booth in his absence.  A number of persons whom the complainant named threw away his booth and he filed a complaint in Police  Station  Mahindra Park on 24.07.2017 but no action was taken against the said persons who are very influential.  He requested that he should be returned the items of his booth, Rs. 25000/- and the cost to reset up his booth. 

2.           The matter was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 07.03.2018.

3.           Respondent No. 1, Dy. Secretary,APMC(MNI), Azadpur vide ATR dated 07.03.2018 submitted as under:

“Allotment of space for telephone booth at D-Block (Behind D-Block) near shop No.D-403, NSM, Azadpur, space measuring 5’X5’ sq. ft. for public telephone booth for eleven month allotted to Sh. Ashok Aggarwal, G-3/52, Model Town-3, Delhi vide this office letter No.F.6/APMC/EHQ/96-97/73 dated 04.03.1998 on nominal licence fee with the following terms and conditions:-
1.    That the licence fee shall be paid in advance quarterly @0.75 paisa, per sq. ft. Per month.
2.    That the licence fee may be enhanced at any time by this market committee.
3.    In case of any encroachment near the telephone booth the allotment of space may be cancelled without any notice.
4.    That this shall not be construed as tenancy.
5.    That no permanent structure shall be made on the allotted space.
6.    A Board indicating the rates of telephone calls of various types should be displayed.
7.    That Sh. Ashok Aggarwal shall run the telephone booth himself.
8.    That the space shall be used for installation of telephones only.
9.    No other trade of F&W etc. shall be allowed on this allotted space.
10. That he shall abide/follow each and every terms and conditions which shall be assigned to him by APMC, Azadpur for running the telephone booth.
11. That allottee shall construct the temporary structure of telephone booth within a month, failing which the allotment made by the committee shall be cancelled.
The said space was allotted for telephone booth initially for the period of 11 months w.e.f. 04.03.1998 to 03.02.1999, it was further extended by the Marketing Committee time to time and the said allotment was valid upto 31.03.2015, please refer to notice No.643/APMC/EM/06/366 dated 22.02.2015 vide which Sh. Ashok Aggarwal directed to deposit licence fee w.e.f. 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015.The said space for telephone booth was allotted to Sh. Ashok Aggarwal in the year 1998, as per the information available, the said space at that time was lying vacant behind D-Block and no shed was made during that time, hence, the competent authority has allowed to Sh. Ashok Aggarwal in the year 1998 to operate telephone booth, from D-Block, Near Shop No.D-403, thereafter, initially a temporary shed (Chappar) was installed by the APMC at behind D-Block, however, the said telephone booth was not shifted from the existing place.During the year 2014-15 the said temporary shed was got vacated from the all the occupying market functionaries including the complainant telephone booth and a new semi-pakka structure was constructed by the APMC, Azadpur in the year 2015-16.  Thereafter, lemon traders and kissans were allowed to operate from newly constructed shed.
After that Sh. Ashok Aggarwal/complainant was also put his telephone booth at Phar No.1, Newly constructed D-Block Parking Shed, which is meant for unloading of agricultural goods only.  As per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter, the maximum size of telephone booth is permitted upto 5’X5’, but the complainant has installed a telephone booth in the size of 6’3X6.3’ which is bigger than the sanctioned size.            As per the terms and condition No.7 of the letter dated 04.03.1009, Sh. Ashok Aggarwal/complainant shall run the telephone booth himself.  But, he does not operate the said telephone booth itself.            However, some traders protested against him and requested to shift his telephone booth from the Phar No.,1, as they do not have sufficient  space for uploading of agricultural goods at Phar No.1 of D-Block Parking Shed, which is the main object of the sheds.            Therefore, Sh. Ashok Aggarwal was requested to shift his telephone booth from the Phar No.1, D-Block Shed to vacant space which is very near at Phar No.1 and Shop No.D-403.  Accordingly, Sh. Ashok Aggarwal itself shifted his telephone booth at the present place of location of telephone booth.            The main object of the complainant is that he may be allowed to install his telephone booth at Phar No.1 (auction Platform) of D-Block Parking Shed, as all sheds are developed for unloading of agricultural produce.  Hence, we are unable to permit him on the Phar No.1 of D-Block Parking Shed as the all sheds are developed for unloading of agricultural goods only.That any action taken is within the four corners of the Act and policy matter which serves the aims and object of the Act”.

 4.      Vide his letter dated 07.03.2018, the complainant alleged that he was being threatened for filing the complaint before this Court and that the land mafia and the concerned officials of APMC are bent upon displacing him from the spot where his booth was initially located.  A hearing was therefore scheduled on 02.04.2018.  During the hearing, the parties agreed to resolve the matter amicably.  Accordingly, respondent was directed to depute the concerned officials and identify a suitable place which is acceptable to the complainant and the commission agents in the Mandi to enable the complainant to carry out his livelihood activities from the kiosk and to submit a report to that affect duly signed by the complainant by 11.04.2018.

5.      Respondent No. 2 was directed to ensure that action on the complaint dated 22.07.2017 of the complainant addressed to SHO, P.S. Mahindra Park, Delhi was taken and an action taken report   submitted by 11.04.2018.  It was also brought to the notice that Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide circular No. 28/2017 has directed all the Dy. Commissioners of Police to take necessary action to make the IOs aware of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to ensure its effective implementation particularly Section 7 of the said Act which pertains to the duties of the Police Officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability.

6.      Vide letter dated 26.03.2018, respondent No. 2, informed that the matter was got enquired through ACP, Shalimar Bagh, North West District, Delhi which revealed that APMC authorities had allotted one STD booth to the complainant which has been removed by APMC authorities themselves. As there was no cognizable offence, the complaint was being transferred to Secretary, APMC for necessary action. 

7.      On the next date of hearing on 24.04.2018, Sh. Naresh Jain, Son-in-law of the complainant, who appeared on his behalf, filed a written submission and stated that as per the order of this court, Sh. S.K. Gupta Dy. Secretary, APMC has given permission to set up the booth at the original place on 21.04.2018 and the complainant is satisfied with the arrangement.

8.      In the light of the positive action by respondent No. 1, the complaint is closed and disposed off accordingly.

9.           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 3rd day of May, 2018.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Digitally Signed PDF Copy of the Order: 

Jugal Kishore Vs. Commissioner Delhi Police | Case No. 42/1111/2017/11/6911-12 | Dated: 24.04.2018

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. 42/1111/2017/11/6911-12                                    Dated: 24.04.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Jugal Kishore

510/7, Ashok Mohalla,

Nangloi, Delhi-110005                                        ................ Petitioner

                                                          Versus                              

The Commissioner,

Delhi Police,

MSO Building,

I.T.O, Delhi-110002.                                         ………...…Respondent

Date of Hearing:    14.03.2018 and 23.04.2018

Present:                 Ms. Preeti, Complainant.

ASI Dharambir Singh, on behalf of Respondent.

  

ORDER

          The above named complainant, father of Ms. Kiran, a person with 79% moderate mental retardation with mild hypertonia with right hemiparesis, vide his complaint dated 24.11.2017 submitted inter alia that he and his brothers/other family members have a property dispute which is before the Tis Hazari Court.  He also alleged that his brothers and their families abuse him and his other family members including his younger daughter Ms. Kiran who is a person with disability.  They torture her due to which she gets fits. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 30.11.2017 followed by reminder dated 27.12.2017.  As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 14.03.2018.  During the hearing, the complainant submitted a CD containing the video clips alongwith, its transcript dated 01.12.2017, 07.12.2017, 20.02.2017, 04.03.2017 and some photographs in support of his allegations.  In his rejoinder dated 27.01.2018 the complainant also alleged delayed action by the police and submitted that had the police officials taken action against the culprits in time, further violence/criminal case against his daughter with mental retardation would not have happened.  He also submitted that the police parties cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility by saying that a civil dispute is pending before the Court and no police action is warranted. 

3.       During the hearing, the representative of the respondent vide status report dated 13.03.2018 submitted that the complainant and other parties namely Mukesh Kumar and others have a family property dispute which is before the Tis Hazari Court.  Action U/s. 41.1(C) Cr. P.C has also been taken against the brother of the complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar. 

4.       The complainant reiterated his written submissions and alleged that he was not getting the protection of police. 

5.       On going through the CD containing the video clips submitted by the complainant, it was observed that the accused was seen using abusive language and threatening the complainant and his family members. 

6.       Vide ROP dated 15.03.2018, it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the complaint was taken up as the complainant had alleged that his brother Sh. Rajesh Kumar and his other brother and their families hurl abuses and indulge in obscene activities and torture his daughter Ms. Kiran who is a person with 79% disability. 

7.       As the status report did not address the issues relating to the abuse, violence and exploitation of Ms. Kiran by the accused, the concerned officer at Police Station, Nangloi under the respondent was directed to investigate the matter and ascertain whether Ms. Kiran, daughter of the complainant was being abused, subjected to violence and exploitation by the accused persons.  It was also advised that assistance of a rehabilitation professional trained to handle persons with intellectual disability (mental retardation) may be taken to interact with Ms. Kiran and a report be submitted to this court by 16.04.2018 with a copy to the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction of the area and the complainant.  On receipt of the report, the Executive Magistrate should take immediate steps to stop or prevent the abuse, violence, exploitation, etc. of Ms. Kiran.  Attention was also drawn to the circular no. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017 Office of the Commissioner of Police Delhi vide which all the DCsP have been directed to take necessary action to make the IOs aware of the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

The said Section 7 provides as under:

“7. (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”.

8.       On the next date of hearing on 23.04.2018, the representative of the respondent submitted the status report dated 23.04.2018 as per which a criminal case has been registered against Sh. Mukesh, uncle of Ms. Kiran, Smt. Rakhi, Aunt, Sh. Chiranji Lal, another uncle and others vide FIR No. 102/18 u/s. 323/506/509/34 IPC and Section 92 of Right of Persons with Disability Act of the statement of Ms. Kiran daughter of the complainant.  It has further been stated that the victim was produced before the Hon’ble MM Court and her statement was recorded u/s. 164 Cr. P.C.  The charge sheet has been prepared and sent for scrutiny to Prosecution Branch, Tis Hazari on 16.04.2018.  As per the report, the charge sheet will be sent for trial shortly.  The respondent has further submitted that in view of the breach of peace among the brothers, Kalandra u/s. 107/150 CrPC has already sent before SEM, Outer District, Pitampura, New Delhi with request for obtaining bond of good behaviour of the parties.  Respondent also enclosed a copy of the FIR dated 28.03.2018.  The representative of the respondent added that the proceedings are likely to start in the Court of MM, Tis Hazari within a week to 10 days.

 9.      Ms. Preeti, sister of Ms. Kiran submitted that the family members of her uncles continue commenting on her sister using derogatory language. 

10.     As the FIR has already been registered and the victim has been produced before the Hon’ble MM Court and her statement has been recorded in pursuance to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and other relevant laws, the complainant may bring any further instances of abuse, violence or exploitation etc. towards Ms. Kiran to the notice of the concerned police station and Executive Magistrate who will take appropriate action under the provisions of the said Act. 

11.     While considering this case, the concerned Executive Magistrate may also take note of the provisions of Section 89 and 92 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which provide for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the said Act or rules or regulations made thereunder and for punishment for offences and atrocities against persons with disabilities respectively.  SHO, P.S. Nangloi shall intimate this Court as soon as the charge sheet is sent for trial, in any case by 08.05.2018.  

12.     The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 24^th day of April, 2018.     

                                                                           (T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sh. B.G. Sarkar Vs. The Manager, Union Bank of India | Case No. 57/1111/2017/12 | Dated: 27 Aug 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. 57/1111/2017/12/ 16867-70                                          Dated: 23.04.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. B.G. Sarkar(H/o)

Ms. Sulata Sarkar

D-370, Indra Park

Najafgarh, Delhi-110043                                      ................ Complainant

                                          Versus                         

The Manager,

Union Bank of India

RZ-26, Roshan Mandi,

Najafgarh, Delhi-110043                                       ………...…Respondent

Date of Hearing: 12.04.2018

Present:     Mr. B.G. Sarkar, on behalf of Complainant.

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Branch Manager and Sh. Manish Lamba, SWO ‘A’, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

          The above named complainant vide his complaint  dated 09.11.2017 submitted that his wife Smt. Sulata Sarkar, a person with 40-70% moderate disability had closed her Savings Bank Account No. 697502010001211 in Union Bank of India Branch, Najafgarh on 11.04.2017 and opened a Savings Bank Zero Balance facility account No. 697502010010498 in the same branch on 06.03.2017.  As the bank did not link the said new zero balance account to Aadhaar, she did not get the enhanced disability pension @Rs. 2500/- per month.  He requested that this bank be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to his wife.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 27.12.2017.  The respondent Bank vide letter dated 08.01.2018 submitted that the saving account 697502010001211 of Mrs. Sarkar was opened on 29.08.2013 and the Aadhaar was immediately linked after receiving the same on 27.04.2015.  During this gap the customer did only two cash deposit transaction with the bank and did all the withdrawals through ATM only.  She had also not maintained minimum balance in the account.  She had not approached the bank with any other transactions.  Later on when she approached the Bank for Aadhaar inquiry in her saving account, she was informed that it had already been done. She was also asked that if any Department had any issue with not linking of Aadhaar with her account, then she should provide the Bank a soft copy of the communication.  But still she did not provide any letter and closed her account.  She again requested to open another saving account with zero balance which was opened on 06.03.2017 and linked it to Aadhaar on 11.04.2017 after de-linking Aadhaar from the previous account.  It has further been stated that Smt. Sulata Sarkar requested to transfer the account to Dwarka Branch Accordingly, her saving account was transferred on 12.09.2017.  During all the said processes, she was not harassed and the Bank tried its best to co-operate.

3.      Vide his rejoinder dated 24.01.2018, the complainant informed that he is not satisfied with the reply of the bank and a hearing should be scheduled.  Subsequently vide letter dated 05.03.2018, the complainant also inter-alia requested that compensation of Rs. 20,000/- should be paid to his wife Smt. Sulata Sarkar.

4.      During the hearing on 12.04.2018, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Branch Manager submitted a letter dated 11.04.2018 which reiterated the submissions vide letter dated 08.01.2018.  He also produced the e-mails exchanged between the central office and the Najafgarh Branch of the Bank about linking of account number 473481004228 of Smt. Sulata Sarkar to her Aadhaar.  Sh. Gupta explained that, the old account of Smt. Sulata Sarkar was already linked.  The new zero balance account no. 697502010010498 which was opened on 06.03.017 had been linked with Aadhaar on 11.04.2017.  The said account was transferred to a Dwarka Branch of the same bank as per the request of the account holder.  As per him, there was no delay in linking the Aadhaar of Smt. Sulata Sarkar with her new account and the bank is not responsible for delay in release of enhanced pension.  The e-mail dated 25.09.2017 of the Department of Social Welfare that the account of Smt. Sulata Sarkar had not been linked to her Aadhaar, was replied to and she was informed that the said account had been linked as per bank records.

5.      From the records made available by the parties, it appears that there was a communication gap between the Department of Social Welfare and the Najafgarh Branch of the Bank which was further complicated due to transfer of the account from Najafgarh Branch to Dwarka Branch around the same time.

6.      It has been observed that a number of beneficiaries with disabilities of social security are facing hardships due to issues concerning linking of their Aadhaar to their bank accounts.  In view of this, Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi may identify possible areas of difficulties and issue an advisory to all the banks in NCT of Delhi to ensure smooth release of the social security amounts to persons with disabilities, who are dependent on the disability pension, etc. for their livelihood/maintenance.   

7.      There is no provision for compensation in the Rights for the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  Hence, no recommendation can be made for the same.

8.      The matter is disposed off.

9.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23^rd day of April, 2018.     

                                                                           (T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to: 

1.   The Regional Director, RBI, 6 Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.  For appropriate action in terms of the recommendation in para 6.
2.   Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for information.  

Raj Bahadur Bhandari Vs. The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1101/2015-Wel/CD/6660-61 | Dated: 16.04.2018

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. 4/1101/2015-Wel/CD/6660-61                 Dated: 16.04.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Raj Bahadur Bhandari,

7/2, Leprosy Home, Tahirpur,

Shahdara, Delhi-110095.                                                                           ...Complainant

                                                                      Versus

The Commissioner

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

419, Udyog Sadan Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi.                                                                                                           ..…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:           05.04.2018

Present:  Sh. Ramphal, SO, ED MC, Sh. Sunil Kumar, EDMC, Sh. Joseph

S.K.EDMC, Sh. Dharmender Kumar, ASO, EDMC, Dr. Ramesh Kumar, EDMC

         

ORDER

            The above named complainant vide his representation dated 27.07.2015 addressed to the President of India, which was received from the court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide their letter dated 28.08.2015 submitted that he and other 50 family members of the Leprosy Cured persons were shifted from Andheria Mod, Mehrauli to the Nazul land in East Delhi for rehabilitation in 1958 by former Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to do some agricultural activities for their livelihood Social Welfare Department with Hope Foundation, an NGO constructed some houses and some leprosy cured persons were settled there and were given ownership of those houses.  The complainant requested that the 50 family members of the Leprosy cured persons living in Tahirpur leprosy home complex to be given the ownership of the residences they are occupying. 

2.               The complaint was taken up with Department of Social Welfare and the three Municipal Corporations vide communication dated 9.9.2015.  Social Welfare Department vide letter dated 21.09.2015 informed that Sh. Raj Bhahadur Bhandari had also approached Hon’ble High Court through his Society “Gandhi Kushth Krishi Sanstha” in WP(C)/3060/2013.  As per the directions of Hon’ble High Court, the matter was investigated in depth by the Department of Social Welfare and a report was submitted to the government counsel and was also given to the petitioner.  Subsequently, petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition by court.  As per the conclusion of the report, the land measuring about 16 acres belongs to MCD and therefore Department of Social Welfare has no rule to play as only EDMC had the jurisdiction in respect of the land in question.

3.               In view of the above, Social Welfare department, North DMC and South DMC were removed from the array of parties.  East DMC and the complainant were summoned for hearing on 20.02.2018.  During the hearing on 20.02.2018, the complainant reiterated that the leprosy cured persons who were shifted from Andheria Mod, Mehrauli to Kusht Grah Tahirpur in 1958 should be given the ownership of the space they have been allotted to live.  He also submitted that the Leprosy Cured Persons and their families, who were rehabilitated at Anand Grah, Gandhi Ashram and Kasturba Gram have been given the ownership of the land by the concerned authorities.  Although the members of Kusht Grah Tahirpur were shifted and rehabilitated much before the members of the other organisations, they have been discriminated against.

4.               The officers from Maintenance Department and Health Department present during the hearing submitted that as per the record available with them, the land in question belongs to EDMC.  However, they are responsible only for maintenance. The Land and Estate Department of EDMC is the appropriate Department to deal with the question of ownership as they maintain the land record.  They also submitted that the detailed report dated 10.07.2015, which was forwarded to Commissioner, EDMC vide this Court’s letter dated 16.04.2015 has not been seen by them. 

3.               It was observed that the Administrative Officer, Land and Estate Department EDMC (HQ) vide his letter No. Ac/L&E/EDMC/ 2015D-1350 Dated 20.10.2015 and 09.09.2015 had informed that the points raised by the complainant in his representation did not pertain to that Department.

6.               In view of the above, Commissioner vide ROP dated 22.02.2018 EDMC was requested to depute an officer of appropriate level to coordinate with all the concerned Departments of EDMC namely Land & Estate Department, Health Department and the Maintenance Department of EDMC to appreciate the issue involved and submit a consolidated report by 31.03.2018 mentioning therein inter-alia as to why the complainant’s request to give ownership of the space at Kusht Grah Tahirpur to the leprosy cured persons and their families should not be accepted and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 5.04.2018. 

7.               During the hearing on 05.04.2018, EDMC vide letter dated 26.03.2018 informed that ownership of the land in question vests with EDMC and giving ownership to the present occupiers is a policy matter and as there is no policy to give ownership rights to the persons,  EDMC is not in a position to give ownership rights to those persons.  Dr. Ramesh Kumar Medical Officer, Leprosy Home, Tahilpur, EDMC also submitted a letter dated 02.04.2018, contents to which are reproduced below: -

      “In pursuance of directions of State Commissioner for persons with disabilities, a Joint meeting of Health Department, Land & Estates Department and maintenance Department was held under the chairmanship of Director Hospital Administration (DHA).  The meeting was attended by Dr. N.K. Tangri, Addl. DHA, Dr. Ramesh, Incharge, Leprosy Home Tahirpur, Sh. Shyam Vir Singh, AE/EEM-I, Sh(N) and Sh.Ramphal, SO, L & E Department.

      The matter was discussed and it was found that no land has ever been allotted to Leprosy Affected Persons for any purpose by either erstwhile MCD (now EDMC), MCD is allowing only treatment facilities to Lepers in this premise, only to the leprosy inmates of leprosy Home, EDMC, Tahirpur under control of EDMC.  Ownership of the said land vest with EDMC and in respect of transferring ownership to the present occupiers/leprosy cured persons/ legal heirs/family members of leprosy cured persons is a policy matter and presently there is no such policy to transfer ownership rights to the above mentioned peoples.

          Finally unanimously it was decided that EDMC is not in a position to transfer ownership rights to these persons.”

8.               He also informed that the leprosy home is primarily to treat and take care of persons with leprosy and not their offsprings/relatives.  However, they continue to occupy premises.  He also added that the complainant and 52 others have also filed Writ Petition No. WP (C)/1496/2017/ Gandhi Kushth Sanstha V/s East Delhi Municipal Corporation.  The next date of hearing is on 19.09.2018.  Thus the matter is subjudice.

9.               In view of the fact that the matter is before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. this complaint is closed and disposed off.

7.               Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16^th day of April, 2018.     

                       (T.D. Dhariyal )

                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities