Judgements - Court of State Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities, Delhi ( SCPD Delhi)

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Alpna Kumari Vs. SHO Shalimar Bagh Police Station & 4 Others | Case No. 769/1111/2019/03/5513-5518 | Dated:18.09.2019

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. 769/1111/2019/03/5513-5518 Dated:18.09.2019

In the matter of:

Mrs. Alpna Kumari,

HOS, GGSS School (ID-1309024),

Haiderpur, Delhi-110088. ....Complainant

Versus

The SHO

Police Station,

Opposite BH Block,

Shalimar Bagh-110088. ..... Respondent No. 1

The Deputy Director

Directorate of Education,

North West A, BL Block,

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088. ..... Respondent No. 2

The Principal Rani Chennamma SKV,

Near Kushal Cinema, Block-D,

Jahangirpuri Industrial Area,

Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033. ..... Respondent No. 3

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Distt.-North West

Police Station Ashok Vihar

New Delhi-110052. ..... Respondent no. 4

Email: dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in

(impleaded as Resp. No. 4)

Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan,

D-25, Green Valley Apartment,

Sector 18, Rohini,

Delhi. ..... Respondent No. 5

(impleaded as Resp. No. 5)

Last Date of hearing: 16.09.2019

Present: Ms. Alpna Kumar, HOS, Complainant in person.

Sh. Kailash Chand, DDE, Zone-9 for Respondent no.2.

Ms. Harbir Kuar HOS SKV Plot No.5, Jahagirpuri for

Respondent no. 3.

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with above 40% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 25.02.2019 submitted that she is working as HOS in GGSS Haider Pur School of Directorate of Education, District (North West-A). On 12.09.2018 Mrs. Saroj Devi Chauhan, PGT Political Science ID-200711531 who was earlier working in GGSS Haider Pur School and currently posted in Rani Chennamma SKV, Jahangirpuri School came to her office without any prior appointment for getting her ACR remarks of the previous year i.e. 2016-17 changed from “Good” to “Very Good”. She advised her to approach her new school where her documents had already been forwarded. Mrs. Saroj Devi Chauhan created a huge obscene drama and insulted her by saying that I did not know my duties because she is a Head of School with disability. She again went to her office on 23.02.2019 for the same matter without any prior notice / appointment. The complainant again advised her that all her documents had already been sent to new school and any action to make changes in her ACR would be taken by the Principal of her current school. She became furious and started arguing with her. She behaved in a very rude manner and shouted at the top of her voice and kept insulting her by commenting on her disability. She even threatened and made derogatory remarks about her and her family. This caused her mental trauma and damaged her reputation in the school.

2. The complainant also forwarded copies of her complaint separately to the SHO, Police Station (Shalimar Bagh), Dy. Director Education (North West –A) Shalimar Bagh, Principal, Rani Chennamma SKV, Jahangirpuri. Copies of the same were provided by her in response to this Court’s letter dated 11.03.2019. Thereafter the complaint was taken up with the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 vide letter dated 29.03.2019 followed by reminders Dated 15.04.2019 and 08.05.2019 seeking action taken report on the complaint.

3. The complainant vide her letter dated 05.05.2019 informed that no action taken report has been submitted by SHO(Shalimar Bagh). As there was no response from respondent No. 1 & 2, a hearing was held on 12.07.2019.

4. During the hearing on 12.07.2019, the complainant reiterated her written submissions and was highly perturbed and scared about her security in light of the threats, intimidation and humiliation by Ms. Saroj Devi Chauhan. She also expressed her concern about inordinate delay in taking action against the complainant by the concerned authorities including the SHO who had not even contacted her till the date of hearing.

5. Smt. Reeta Gupta, DEO Zone IX submitted that after receipt of the complainant, a committee comprising Ms. Harbir Kaur, HOS SKV, Plot 5, A Block, Jahangir Puri and Ms Poonam GSSS, Azadpur to enquire into the matter was constituted. They completed the inquiry and submitted the report to DD, Zone IX. The Competent Authority would consider the same and take necessary action and a report would be submitted to this Court.

6. Ms. Anita Bharti HOS RCG, SKV, D Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033 under whom Ms. Saroj Devi Chauhan is working, submitted that on receipt of the complaint, she sought explanation of Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan. She was served memos dated 25.02.2019 and 26.03.2019 for leaving the school before time without permission.

7. The concern of this Court was conveyed about the SHO, Shalimar Bagh not taking any action on the complaint dated 25.02.2019 of Ms. Alpna Kumari for so long till date despite the fact that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Circular no. 128/2017 dated 25.10.2017 had directed all the Dy. Commissioners of Police to make all the IOs aware about the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 particularly Section 7 which deals with the duties of police officer and the penal provisions for offences committed against persons with disabilities. DCP (North-West), Ashok Vihar Police Station, Delhi-110052 was therefore impleaded as respondent no. 4 with the advice to direct the concerned SHO to take immediate action on the complaint and submit a report within 7 days from the date of receipt of the record of proceeding dated 16.07.2019.

8. Section 7 (iv) of the Act provides, “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.”

Section 92 of the Act inter-alia provides that whoever,—

“(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;

(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability...”

9. Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan was also impleaded as respondent no. 5 and was directed to submit her version of the case within 07 days of receipt of the record of proceedings dated 16.07.2019 with a copy of her version to the complainant for filing her rejoinder, if any, within 7 days of receipt of the said reply.

10. The parties were directed to also note that under Section 93 of the Act, “they are duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.25,000/- in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”

11. On the next date of hearing on 12.08.2019, the complainant submitted that she had received the reply dated 16.07.2019 of Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, the respondent No. 5. The members of the enquiry committee met her and the witnesses whose statements were recorded were disclosed to the other staff as intimated by the concerned witnesses, which according to her, was not appropriate. She had not received any other communication either from the Department or the police till then.

12. Smt. Reeta Gupta, DEO, Zone-09 who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, submitted an action taken report dated 18.08.2019, as per which the preliminary enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the I.O on 10.07.2019. Based on the showcause notice and the reply received from Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, DDE zone-09 had proposed for Departmental proceedings to be initiated against Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan. It had also been suggested that till completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the case in this court may be kept sine die.

13. As per rule 49.(8) of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018, the State Commissioner shall decide the complaint as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party. It was therefore not possible to keep the matter pending until the completion of the Departmental proceedings.

14. It was also brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 and all other concerned that the Model Time Limit of six months has been laid down for Departmental Inquiry vide Circular no. 8(1)(g)99(3) dated 03.03.1999 of Central Vigilance Commission which is reproduced below:

Stage of Departmental Inquiry	Time Limit prescribed
· Fixing date of Preliminary Hearing and inspection of listed documents, submission of Defence documents/ witnesses and nomination of a Defence Assistant (DA) (if not already nominated)	Within four weeks
· Inspection of relied upon documents/submission of list of DWs/Defence documents/Examination of relevancy of Defence documents/DWs, procuring of additional documents and submission of certificates confirming inspection of additional documents by CO/DA · Issue of summons to the witnesses, fixing the date of Regular Hearing and arrangement for participation of witnesses in the Regular Hearing · Regular Hearing on Day to Day basis	3 months
· Submission of Written Brief by PO to CO/IO	15 days
· Submission of Written Brief by CO to IO	15 days
· Submission of Inquiry Report from the date of receipt of written Brief by PO/CO	30 days

NB: If the above schedule is not consistent/ in conflict with the existing rules/ regulations of any organisation, the outer time limit of six months for completing the Departmental Inquiries should be strictly adhered to”.

15. Central Vigilance Commission has also circulated vide its circular dated 18.01.2016, the adverse comments of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their judgement dated 16.12.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010 Sh. Prem Nath Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi for delay in handling of disciplinary cases.

16. In light of the above, respondent No. 2 was directed to conclude the Departmental Inquiry within the prescribed time limit and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 be kept in view.

17. As there had not been any response from the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4, Ms. Vijayanta Arya, DCP (Distt. North West) was contacted on telephone during the hearing and was advised to expedite the enquiry and submit a report before the next date of hearing on 16.09.2019 with a copy of the report to the complainant for her rejoinder, if any.

18. Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan reiterated that she had gone to the school for submission of her written representation for upgrading her ACR grading. As the Head Clerk accepts letters only after the permission of the HOS, she got into a verbal dialogue with the complainant.

19. On 16.09.2019, the complainant reiterated her written submissions and pointed out that two police officials visited her school for the first time on 13.09.2019 and without inquiring into the matter / meeting anybody in the school, handed over the copy of a note dated 30.08.2019 signed by ACP(Shalimar Bagh) directing SHO, Shalimar Bagh and S.I. Sh. Shekhar (EO) to hand over the copy of enquiry report to complainant as well as pursue the matter on 16.09.2019 and to send the outcome report thereof to ACP for onwards transmission to office of senior officers. She was handed over the inquiry report dated 16.09.2019 signed by S.I. Sh. Shekhar and SHO(Shalimar Bagh) outside the Office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities just before the hearing.

20. A copy of the said Inquiry report of the police has also been submitted to this Court which inter-alia says that during the course of inquiry, no independent witness has come forward to give the statement on the matter. They also contacted Ms. Alpna Kumari and mobile numbers of the police staff of PS Shalimar Bagh have also been given to her for security purpose.

21. Sh. Kailash Chandra DDE, Zone-9 alongwith other officials appeared and submitted an action taken report dated 16.09.2019 which reads as under :

“A preliminary enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the I.O. on 10.07.2019.

A show cause notice was issue to Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, PGT, Political Science (Emp. ID-200711531), SKV, D-Block, Jahangirpuri, vide letter No. F.4/Zone-09/DNWA/11/2019/446 dated 03.08.2019. The reply has been received from Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, PGT, Political Science through HOS of the School on 17.08.2019 vide Reference No. 196.

Further, on the basis of conclusion in PE, DDE Zone-09 has proposed from Department Proceedings to be initiated against Ms. Saroj Devi Chauhan and sent the file to Section Officer (Vig.) Dte. Of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.

Now, the file is returned back with the following observations:

1. How many times she left office early?

2. What are corroborating evidences against her?

3. Comments with supporting documents on the reply to SCN dated 03/08/2019 submitted by her (copy of the letter of Section Officer (Vig.) is enclosed herewith).

The matter is now under process.

Dy. Director of Education,
Zone-IX, District North West-A”

22. Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, respondent No. 5 also submitted her reply vide letter dated 25.07.2019, which reads as under:

“Subject: Regarding misbehavior and harassment by Saroj Devi Chauhan [PGT (Pol.Sci.) ID-20071153]

Reference: Case No. 769/1111/2019/03/3515-3520 Dated: 16/07/2019

In the above stated matter, reply is as under:

1. Sir, there was no issue of making drama/ shouting and kind of nuisance of dt. 15/09/2018. As stated by Mrs. Alpana Kumari in her complaint, if I created any drama on dt. 12/09/2018, she is complaining after five months which is evidently an intentional conspiracy against me. I am shocked to read the complaint done by worthy Mrs. Alpana Kumari, HoS, Haiderpur. No subordinate would shout before his/her senior officer till he/she is insulted and made to feel like a slave again and again. I would like to clarify that all the allegations against me are fabricated, false and totally baseless. As per my knowledge, there is no need for prior appointment/ information for official work in our own department. Matter of dt. 12/09/2018 being raised on 23/02/2019 is a sufficient evidence to prove this.

2. After instructions issued by the Directorate, I simply met Smt. Alpana Kumari for forwarding of my application to Mrs. Harsh Pahwa, Vice Principal for upgradation for my ACR records from ‘good’ to ‘very good’ to my reporting officer for the year 2016-17 but she denied to do the same.

3. I requested many times to my current Vice Principal, Mrs. Anita Bharti, HoS, SKV Jahangirpuri D-Block to dairy my application but she always denied and asked me to go to my old/paretal school i.e.GGSS, Haiderpur. They both made a rolling stone out of me. On 23/02/2019 when the files of other similar cases of the teachers for the same work were being prepared, I requested again to Mrs. Anita Bharti to prepare my file as well but once again she totally refused and told me to go to my old school Haiderpur. At the time of dispersal of school, I went there and requested Mrs. Alpana Kumari to diary my application. Not only did she deny to do it but also snatched my papers from my hands and threw them on the floor and shouted at me because she has kept the diary and dispatch register in her custody. Whatever unparlimentary words have been written in the letter were used by Mrs. Alpana Kumari and not by me. A teacher cannot use unparliamentary language for her superior like this.

4. Sir, we teachers have no power to do anything. I am the victim here. I also have a question in mind if a senior officer should not have patience to listen to a victim or his/her junior staff sympathetically. Do I have no right to submit my application to my HoS? Both the HoS clearly refused to take and diary my application in respect to upgradation of my ACR, not only they refused to take my application but also insulted and threatened my as they wanted. I cannot understand what is my mistake in this matter. Principals always threat teachers to spoil their ACR’s and my case is a live example of this. I had worked under the jurisdiction of Mrs. Alpana Kumari since August 2017- April 2018 and I had never disrespected her. Even time to time, I have her lift in my car from school to her residence on humanity grounds.

5. I also would like to know that on 25/02/2019, I met DD Zone North West-A Distt and my same application was forwarded to the HoS, GGSS, Haiderpur for the needful. He also told me to go to Haiderpur school for the same work. So, I went there again and submitted my application and the same has been diarised wide no. HP/GGSS/19/18 dt. 25/02/2019. After laps of five months, I have no records to trace out the status of my application even after I have called them and mailed them more than three times. This shows how she because a dictator and how she is misusing her official powers.

I would like to bring you notice that all these things are disturbing my daily and official life. Both the principals will be fully responsible if any kind of unfortunate incident happens with me.

Yours Sincerely,

Saroj Devi Chauhan
(PGT, Political Science)”

23. Sh. Shekhar, S.I., Shalimar Bagh also appeared personally after the hearing and submitted that he was also required to go to the Hon’ble High Court and Rohini Court. He also submitted that he will again try to obtain the statements of the willing staff if any, within a week.

24. In view of the foregoing the following recommendations are made:

(i) As already directed vide RoP dated 22.08.2019, it is recommended that the respondent No. 2 should conclude the Departmental Inquiry within the time frame prescribed by Central Vigilance Commission. The provisions of the Act should be kept in mind while inquiring/ examining/ taking action in the matter. If the Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, respondent No. 5 is found to have intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant or assaulted or used force to the complainant with the intent to dishonour her, the matter alongwith necessary documents be referred to Special Court of Additional Session Judge-02 designated vide Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs Notification No. F.1/19/2018-Judl./Suptlaw/1499-1507 dated 19.08.2019 under Section 84 of the Act having the jurisdiction for trial of offences under the Act.
(ii) DCP (North West) should sensitise the police officers and personnel at all levels and aware them about the provisions of the Act. They should take the issues concerning the persons with disabilities seriously and be humane while dealing with them recognising their vulnerability. While writing this order I have received a reply from Ms. Vijayanta Arya, DCP (North West) that she would review the matter. While I appreciate this and recommend that efforts to collect the evidence be made and the same be provided to the Department of Education promptly.

25. This Court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

26. The complaint is disposed of.

27. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 18th day of September, 2019.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Suvarna Raj Vs. The Motor Licensing Officer, Transport Department & Anr. | Case No. 724/1092/2019/02/5476-5478 | Dated:17.09.2019

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-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. 724/1092/2019/02/5476-5478 Dated:17.09.2019

In the matter of:

Ms. Suvarna Raj

165, Gali No. -13,

Balbir Nagar Extn.

Shahadra, Delhi-110032 ......... Complainant

Versus

The Motor Licensing Officer

O/o the Motor Licensing Officer

Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi,

North East Zone,

Loni Road Delhi-110094. ........ Respondent No. 1

The Secretary-cum-Commissioner

Transport Department

5/9 Under Hill Road

Delhi-110054. .….. Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing 12.09.2019

Present: Sh. Pradeep Raj, Sh. Ravi Chauhan and Sh. Rajesh Kapoor on behalf of complainant, Ms. Suvarna Raj.

Sh. R. Ramanthan, MLO, North East Zone for respondent no. 1.

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 90% locomotor disability (both lower limbs) vide her email dated 06.02.2019 submitted that as per Department of Heavy Industry office order no. 12(42)/2015-AEI (12455) dated 01.05.2018, GST concession at the rate of 18% is provided on the cars for ‘physically handicapped persons’. She further submitted that she is planning to buy a car. She has obtained a medical certificate from GTB Hospital with a lot of difficulties. However, the MLOs at Loni Road and Suraj Mal Vihar refused to issue the certificate without buying the car. She has to apply for the GST concession as her loan for purchasing the car has been sanctioned and all the formalities at the show room have also been completed. She requested that she should be paid Rs.1.25 lakh which is the approximate amount of GST concession fee, if she is not able to avail the GST concession because of the Transport Authority.

2. The complainant has also submitted that she has not been refunded Rs. 3,500/- on account of road tax by MLO, Loni Road as per to the order in case no. 4/1712/2017-Wel/CD and Case no. 86/1150/2018/01. MLO, Loni Road should be directed to do the needful.

3. As the complainant had not enclosed copies of Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ and on a clarification from Department of Heavy Industry that State Road Transport can issue the certificate only after the car is purchased/retrofitted, she was informed vide letter dated 26.02.2019 that no purpose would be served by taking up the matter with the Transport Department, NCT of Delhi at that stage. As regards implementation of other orders of this Court, she was advised to make a specific separate complaint or take up the matter with the appropriate forum.

4. Vide her email dated 26.03.2019, the complainant requested not to close her case and after exchange of a number of correspondence, she submitted a copy of Annexure ‘A’, i.e. the application form for issuance of certificate in respect of an ‘orthopedically disabled person’ for the purpose of GST concession and Annexure ‘B’, i.e. the Medical Certificate vide her email dated 06.08.2019. Thereafter, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, a notice to show cause-cum-hearing dated 19.08.2019 was issued to the respondents as to why the complainant should not be issued the certificate in Annexure ‘D’ to the office order dated 01.05.2018 of Department of Heavy Industry for GST concession for purchase of a car. If the certificate was not issued by 28.08.2019, a hearing was scheduled on 12.09.2019.

5. The motor licensing Officer, North East Zone vide letter dated 19.08.2019 addressed to the complainant with copy to this Court informed that for issuance of certificate in Annexure ‘D’ for GST concession for purchase of car by the persons with disabilities as per office order no. 12(42)/2015-AEI (12455) dated 01.05.2018 of Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, a driving license to drive a motor vehicle as per provision of section 3 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is mandatory.

6. During the hearing on 12.09.2019, Sh. R. Ramanathan, MLO North East Zone, Loni Road submitted that the complainant needs to apply for Learners Driving License for which Form 1A has been prescribed under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Had the complainant submitted that application in February, she would have been issued permanent driving license by now. He therefore, suggested that the complainant may apply for Learners Driving License in Form 1A on any working day and she will be issued the Learners Driving License on the same day on completion of formalities. Once the Learners Driving License is issued, he will be issued the certificate in Annexure ‘D’ required by Department of Heavy Industry on the same day on production of the certificate in Annexure ‘B’ that he perused during the hearing.

7. Sh. Pradeep Raj H/o Smt. Suvarna Raj appeared on her behalf and submitted that she has gone out of Delhi and will return on 15.09.2019. She will apply for Learners Driving License on 16.09.2019 or in the week commencing 16.09.2019. Sh. Pradeep Raj also submitted that the process of issuing certificate to persons with disabilities for GST concession etc. should be streamlined and necessary instructions may be issued to all the concerned Licensing Authorities through a circular to ensure that persons with disabilities do not get harassed.

8. As per the Department of Heavy Industry office order dated 01.05.2018, the conditions attached to the GST concession on cars for person with locomotor disability are as under:

a) Cars being able to be driven by the physically handicapped; or

b) Cars which has been suitably designed to be able to be driven by physically handicapped; or

c) Cars meant for physically handicapped;

9. Annexure ‘A’ to the office order of Department of Heavy Industry is an application format for issuance of certificate in respect of an orthopedically disabled person (person with locomotor disability) for the purpose of GST concession. At serial no. 11 of the said Annexure, an applicant has to give driving license number, if any. So, for GST concession, having a driving license is not mandatory. Annexure B to the office order is a format of medical certificate which, among other things, requires the doctor of a Govt. Hospital or the Medical Board for issuing disability certificate to certify that the applicant is fit to avail the benefit of GST concession with one of the following conditions:

“i) His disability is such that he can use the car only with assistance driver.

ii) His disability is such that he can drive the car with automated transmission only.

iii) His disability is such that he can drive any car (Manual as well as Automated transmission) in spite of above mentioned disability.

iv) His disability is such that he can drive the car provided car can be suitably modified with necessary retrofitted device.”

10. Annexure ‘C’ is a self certificate by an applicant that he/she has not availed concessional rate of Excise Duty/GST on any car in the last five years and will not dispose of the car purchased with Excise/GST concession after purchase for a period of 5 years.

11. Certificate on Annexure ‘D’ is issued by the Road Transport Officer of State Road Transport Authority (Licensing Authority) to certify after verification that applicant is capable of driving the car (name and model) and whether the car requires any retrofitting or has been retrofitted according to his/her locomotor disability. It indicates that applicant should have a car which he/she can drive.

12. Annexure ‘E’ is a certificate to be issued by the Department of Heavy Industry based on the application of a person with locomotor disability, the Medical Certificate and the certificate issued by the Transport Authority which certifies that the particular car indicating the name of the model of the car is capable of being driven/used by the applicant concerned who has a disability to be indicated in the certificate as certified by the concerned Medical Authority. It does not specify that the concession is available only to persons with locomotor disability. It also gives an impression that it is not necessary for an applicant with disability to drive the car as the certificate mentions that the car is capable of being driven/used by the person with disability.

13. It is observed that the complainant has mentioned NA (Not applicable) against column no. 11, “Driving license no. if any” in Annexure ‘A’. In Annexure ‘B’, Dr. Ish Kumar Dhammi, MS (Ortho), Consultant, Ortho Surgeon, Dept. of Orthopedics UCMS & GTB Hospital and Dr. Anil Yadav, Staff Physician, GTB Hospital have issued the medical certificate which, among other things, reads, “his disability is such that he can drive the car provided car can be suitably modified with necessary retrofitted device”. They have recommended the complainant for purchase of the car for her use. Annexure D is the certificate to be issued by the Transport Officer of the State Road Transport Authority which certifies after verification that the person concerned is “capable” of driving car of a particular model with or without retrofitted device. As the certificate given in Annexure ‘B’ establishes the capability of the complainant to drive a car and after verification, the MLO can issue the said certificate.

14. In light of the above discussion, the following recommendations are made:

i) The complainant should submit application in Form 1A to the MLO, North East Zone alongwith the relevant documents on 16.09.2019 or in the week commencing that date.

ii) MLO, North East Zone should issue the Learners Driving License and Annexure ‘D’ to the complainant as soon as possible thereafter.

iii) The complainant will intimate this Court and email a copy of the Learners Driving License and the Annexure ‘D’ by 20.09.2019.

iv) Respondent No. 2 is advised to issue appropriate advisory to all the MLOs to facilitate issuance of Annexure ‘D’ and driving licence to persons with disabilities and ensure that they do not get harassed on account of multiple visits etc.

15. The complaint is dispose of.

16. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16^th day of September, 2019.