Deepit Satish Jain Vs. Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. | Case No. 94/1141/2018/01/7097-7101 | Dated: 04.05.2018

In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

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

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 94/1141/2018/01/7097-7101                    Dated: 04.05.2018

In the matter of :

Sh. Deepit Satish Jain

D-61, Ground Floor

Hauz khas New Delhi -110016

……………..Complainant

Versus

The Commissioner

South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre

J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002

…………………Respondent No.1

Vice Chairman

DDA, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate,

Delhi

………………Respondent 2

Case No. 159/1141/2018/03/                                              

In the matter of :

Smt. Anju Gupta

M/o Sh. Akash Gupta

S-165, School Block

Shakarpur, Delhi -110092

...............Complainant

Versus

The Commissioner

East Delhi Municipal Corporation

419, Udyog Sadan

Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi -110092.                                          ………………Respondent No. 1

Present: Ms. Anju Gupta, Complainant.

Sh. Ashutosh Nandan Atrey, Adovcate on behalf of DDA, Respondent No. 2 and Sh. Manish, AE, SDMC on behalf of Respondent No.1.

ORDER

          Issues involved in the above mentioned two complaints are identical. Therefore, both the cases are being considered and disposed off through this common order.

Case No. No. 94/1141/2018/01

The complainant, a person with 100% visual disability vide his complaint received through his email dated 29.01.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016 hereinafter referred to as an Act, submitted that he is a qualified professional as a Sound Engineer and is also trained as a professional musician (Tabla and Solo Piano). He is carrying on his profession of sound engineer by providing professional support to documentary film makers and media professionals through “Delhi Sound Store”from the premises at E-13 (Basement), Hauz khas Main Market, New Delhi for the last 3 years. He employed 6 staff members and has paid “Income Tax” of Rs 15.29 lakh for the assessment year 2017-2018. The complainant has also stated that he is a National Awardee for outstanding performance as a role model among persons with disabilities. Even after accepting the user-conversion charge of Rs. 33,00,000/- by SDMC, the “Delhi Sound Store” was sealed on the afternoon of 22.01.2018 without giving the complainant any notice or prior intimation. This has prevented him from earning his livelihood from his profession and pay the salary to his employees. The complainant  therefore requested to deseal the “Delhi Sound Store” operating out of E-13 (Basement), Hauz Khas Main Market, New Delhi-110016 and let him carry on his professional activities.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the South DMC vide notice dated 01.02.2018.

Case No. 159/1141/2018/03 :

3.         Smt.  Anju Gupta, whose son Shri Akash Gupta is a person with 75% intellectual disability filed a complaint dated 15.03.2018  under the   Act.  She has submitted inter- alia that she has erected an office for her son in the basement parking of the building whose map was approved by the EDMC and now EDMC has sealed the office on 06.03.2018. She has also submitted that her son who has low intellect broke the seal.  The complainant has requested to deseal the office (Basement parking) to exempt her intellectually impaired son to  let him carry out some activity in the said office.

4.      The complaint was taken up vide Show Cause-Cum-Hearing Notice dated 20.03.2018 and was scheduled for hearing on 22.02.2018 along with case No. 94/1141/2018/01.

5.      During the hearing on 22.03.2018, Sh. Deepit  Satish Jain submitted copies of various judgments.  Referring to the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and various provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, he  stated that the persons with disabilities are not getting equal treatment in various aspects of life.  He further submitted that the Master Plan for Delhi- 2021 (MPD-2021) does not include the vocational activities that many persons with disabilities like him pursue for their livelihood.  He contended  that Divyangjan should be made a separate and special category to carry on his / her vocational activity, which should  be included in the MPD-2021.  It will help many persons with disabilities to earn their livelihoods in a legitimate manner and dignity.  It will also enable their full inclusive and effective participation in the society. He therefore, requested that appropriate authorities be directed for taking corrective measures and necessary amendments in MPD -2021  should be made to permit persons with specified disabilities to earn their livelihoods by using their skills from the place of residence in plotted development and Group Housing etc.  This exception is fully justified as it is extremely difficult for persons with disabilities, especially those with severe disability,  to travel long distance.

6.      The SDMC  vide status report received dated 22.03.2018 submitted as under:

“That, in connection with aforesaid matter, it is submitted that in the wake of orders dated 15.12.2017 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (reviving Monitoring Committee to oversee matter related with misuse) in the matter of M.C. Mehta v/s UOI & Ors., in WP(C) 4677/1985, sealing drive against misuse or property being used in contravention/ violation of sanctioned/ standard plan is going on.
 During the course of sealing action, as was scheduled for 22.01.2018, it was noticed that premises under reference is being used for commercial purpose, in the name and style of M/s Delhi Sound Store.  Accordingly, on account thereof there affixed seal.  It is further submitted that as on now, the permitted/sanctioned use of the basement is only for storage of domestic/household goods.  Thus, in terms of orders dated 15.12.2107, it is discretionary powers of the Monitoring Committee (Apex Court) to order de-sealing of the premises after due consideration.” 

7.      The complaints involved de-sealing of the sealed premises to enable Sh. Deepit Jain and Sh. Akash Gupta to restart their vocational activities to earn their livelihoods immediately and  making  a separate provision for persons with disabilities in MPD -2021 to permit them to carry on their vocational activities from their premises. Vice Chairman, DDA was, therefore,  impleaded as respondent No. 2 and was requested to submit DDA’s version and para-wise comments by 23.04.2018 on the complaints  and to consider the suggestion of the complainant in case no. 94/1141/2018/01 to amend MPD-2021.          As the question of de-sealing of sealed premises is under the purview of the Monitoring Committee (Apex Court), a copy of the record of proceedings was forwarded to the Coordinator, Monitoring Committee for the Committee’s consideration. 

8.      During the hearing on 03.05.2018, the learned Counsel for DDA vide order dated 06.03.2018  stated that further progress in the amendment of the Master Plan has been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide record of proceedings dated 06.03.2018 in W.P.(Civil) Petition No. 4677/1985.  Therefore it is not possible to consider the suggestion to make a separate provision in MPD 2021 at this stage for persons with disabilities put forth by Sh. Deepit Satish Jain, the complainant  in case No. 94/1141/2018/01. 

9.         The representative of the South DMC submitted that there is nothing to add to the status already submitted vide report dated 22.03.2018 and that South DMC has no power to deseal the premises. 

10.    In light of the fact that while highly qualified professionals are permitted to carry on their profession from their residence not allowing  persons with disabilities to carry on their vocational activities to  earn their livelihoods from their residential premises would be discriminatory and against the spirit of the Act, which talks of promotion of vocational training and self employment.   This explains why there is a need to consider persons with disabilities as a separate category (Divyangjan) and allow them to carry on their livelihood activities based on their vocational skills from their residence in a peaceful manner.

11.    In the facts and circumstances of the above cases, the complainants may approach the Coordinator, Supreme Court Monitoring Committee, Apex Court for the purpose of de-sealing their premises.  As regards, considering  persons with disabilities as a separate category in the MPD- 2021  and to allow them to carry on their livelihood activities based on their vocational skills from their residence in plotted development and group housing to live a dignified life,  it is recommended that DDA should consider it whenever  the said plan is amended or re-drawn.  It will be desirable to consult  / involve some persons with disabilities who may be pursuing their vocational skills for  earning their livelihoods.

12.    The complaints are disposed off.

13.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 4^th day of May, 2018.

 (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Naveen Kumar Vs. Commissioner East Delhi Municipal Corporation & 3 Others | Case No.4/1738/2017-Wel/CD/7093-96 | Dated: 04.05.2018

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.4/1738/2017-Wel/CD/7093-96                                      Dated: 04.05.2018

In the matter of:

Mr. Naveen kumar

Deputy General Secretary

Akhil Dilli Prathmik Shikshak Sangh

Nigam Vidyalaya,C-5A Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110058

                                                                                              …………..Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner

East Delhi Municipal Corporation

419, Udyog sadan patparganj

Industrial area New Delhi-110092                                      ...............Respondent no 1

Commissioner

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Dr, S.P.M Civic Centre

J.L.N. Marg,

New Delhi-110028                                                                      ............Respondent no 2

Commissioner

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th floor Dr, S.P.M Civic Centre

J.L.N. Marg,

New Delhi-110028                                                                     .............Respondent no 3

The Director

Directorate of Education

Govt of NCT Delhi

Old Secretariat

Delhi-110054                                                                                 .........Respondent no 4

Date of Hearing: 17.04.2018

Present: Sh. A.K. Goel, DDE, Directorate of Education, Sh. B.R. Meena, SO, North DMC, Sh. M.Mandal, ADE, Education (EDMC), Ms. Mini Sharma, EDMC, Dr. Mukesh Chand, Director of Education, Sh. R.C. Baweja, EDMC

ORDER

            The above named complainant vide complaint dated 15.09.2017 submitted that despite orders of Hon’ble High Court and instructions of various authorities like CBSE, RCI, of Government of NCT of Delhi and Municipal Corporations have not provided even single Special Educator (Primary) for children with disabilities. The complainant prayed that State Project Director of UEE, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of NCT of Delhi be directed to provide Special Director (Primary) /Resource Person in each municipal corporation school on contract/temporary/Guest teachers for academic session 2017-18 or till DSSSB appoints permanent Special Educator so that 2017-18 does not become zero session for children with disabilities.  The complainant also requested to direct the respondent to appoint only such Special Director (Primary) who fulfils the recruitment norms prescribed by RCI.  The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 27.09.2017.

2.  The Directorate of Education vide letter dated 16.10.2016 informed that appointment of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD on regular/contractual /guest is beyond the control of Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi.  As regards, deployment of resource person in schools of Directorate of education, MCD, NDMC, DCB, there are 56 sanctioned posts of resource persons (CWSN).  Out of which 14 are working in the academic year, 2017-18 and the process to fill the remaining posts was under way.  There was no response from the respondent no. 2 and 3.

3.  Upon considering the reply of respondent no.  4 hearing was scheduled on 17.01.2018 and respondents were directed to submit following information on or before date of hearing:

i.               The number of schools functioning under the concerned respondents: 1028

ii.            The number of sanctioned posts of special education teacher: (1024+724) = 1728 (TGT), 300- PGT

iii.           The number of resource centres: 14

iv.           The number of special education teachers appointed on regular basis: 412

v.            The number of special education teachers appointed on contract/temporary basis or as guest teachers: 333

vi.           Proposal to meet the short fall.

4.  During the hearing on 17.1.2018 respondent No. 4 reiterated that the responsibility to provide Special Education Teachers (Primary) in MCD schools is beyond the control of Directorate of Education.  It was assured that the recruitment of primary and upper primary resource persons (CWSN) under IESSA shall be engaged as per recruitment norms prescribed by RCI.   They submitted two letters dated 15.01.2018 as per which, “(i) provision of 01 Special Education Teacher (Primary) in each school of MCD is prime responsibility of MCD and the same is beyond the control of Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi.  The service of resource person (CWSN) under IESSA in MCD schools is a stop gap arrangement.  There are 56 sanctioned posts of resource person (SWSN) under IESSA out of which 13 are working in the current academic year 2017-18 and the process to fill up the remaining posts is under way. (ii) it is hereby ensured that the recruitment of primary and upper primary resource person (CWSN) under IESSA shall be engaged as per recruitment norms prescribed by RCI.”  The letters also contained the following information:

i)              The number of schools functioning under the concerned

            Respondents: 1028

ii)             The number of sanctioned posts of special education teacher:

(1024+724) =1728 (TGT), 300-PGT

iii)           The number of resource centres: 14

iv)           The number of special education teachers appointed on regular

basis: 412

v)            The number of special education teachers appointed on

contract/temporary basis or as guest teachers: 333

vi)           Proposal to meet the short fall: Nil

5.  They further submitted that the requisition to appoint regular Special Education Teachers (SET) for 1329 posts has already been sent to DSSSB.  Process for engaging 278 guest SET is likely to be completed by 19.01.2018.   They also clarified that 1080 posts of SETs were sanctioned on 29.12.2017 and requisition for 724 posts has already been sent to DSSSB for filling up on regular basis.  Simultaneously, action to engage Guest Teachers on contract basis is also under way and will be expedited.  The effort is to engage as many guest teachers as possible. 

6.  The representatives of North DMC and East DMC submitted the following information in compliance with the ROP dated 18.12.2017:

North DMC:

Q.No.	Question	Answer
1	The number of schools functioning under the concerned respondents;	There are 715 schools functioning under the Education department, North DMC;
2	The number of sectioned posts of Special Education teachers;	There are 719 sanctioned posts of Special Educator (Pry.)in the Education Deptt. North DMC, One Special Educator (Phy.) shall be posted in each thereof.
3.	The number of resource centres, if any indicating the details of resources in the resource rooms;	No
4	The number of special education teachers appointed on regular basis	28 Special Educator (Pry.) teachers has been appointed on regular basis.
5	The number of special education teachers appointed on contract/temporary basis or as guest teachers;	2 Special Educator (Pry.) Teachers has been engaged on contract basis.
6	Proposal to meet the short fall;	Proposal for recruitement of 691 Special Educator (Pry.) teachers has been forwarded to DSSSB (Recruiting agency) through South DMC (Nodal Corporation for appointment)

East DMC:

             i.365 schools are running under jurisdiction of EDMC

            ii.365 posts of Special Educator are sanctioned in EDMC

           iii.No resource centres are available in EDMC

           iv.33 Special Educators are working on regular basis in EDMC

            v.No Special Educator is working on contract/temporary basis or as guest teachers.

           vi.To fill the 332 post of Special Educator on regular basis the request has been sent to DSSSB (the recruiting agency) through SDMC.

7. It is observed that number of special education teachers on regular and on contract basis taken together at just 35% of the sanctioned posts in DOE’s schools, is inadequate to ensure quality education of children with disabilities.  The situation in North DMC and East DMC is rather dismal at 4% and 9% respectively.  South DMC would have no better picture. The need for taking urgent steps to improve the situation so that the children with disabilities were not deprived of their basic right was emphasised and all the respondents were also directed to submit by 19.02.2018, the status and the plan of action to deploy at least two special educators in every school as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. On next date of hearing on 28.02.2018, the representatives of Directorate of Education, East DMC and South DMC submitted the status of appointment of Special Education Teachers and the Resource Centres. None appeared on behalf of north DMC nor was any status report and the plan of action received. 

8.         Upon perusal of the status reports and action taken by DOE, EDMC and SDMC and the discussion during the hearing, it emerged that the deployment of CTET qualified Special Education teachers through DSSSB is not likely to improve considerably in near future as such candidates do not become available for various reasons.  The reasons prima-facie range from inadequate number of special education teachers qualifying CTET, not meeting the requirement of the upper age  hint of 30 years for appointment as Guest Teachers or on contract basis, less number of institutions conducting RCI approved courses, etc.  In view of that situation, all the respondents are advised to consider the following till the situation improved and the matter was listed for hearing on 17.04.2018.

(i)            Relax the qualification of CTET for appointment as Special Education Teachers.

(ii)          Relax the upper age limit atleast for appointment as Guest Teachers or on contract basis. 

(iii)         Open all vacant posts of Special Education Teachers for short term appointment on contract basis till candidates become available for regular appointment through DSSSB. 

(iv)         Encourage the Universities/Colleges/institutions in NCT of Delhi to conduct RCI approved courses to improve the supply of special education teachers. 

9.   On the next date of hearing on 17.04.2018, the representatives of Directorate of Education submitted that upper age relaxation and relaxation of CTET qualification is not possible and also not required as they have enough number of special education teachers against sanctioned of 1747 posts in 1029 schools, They have ensured one special education teacher in every school and are making efforts to appoint more special education teachers through DSSSB.

10.  East DMC and North DMC vide their letters dated 17.04.2018 have submitted that it is not possible to relax minimum qualification/eligibility criteria and relaxation in upper age limit for appointment of Guest Teachers.  The same is the case with the South DMC who have added vide letter dated 18.4.2018 that DSSSB has already issued advertisement and written examination is likely to be conducted in July 2018. It has also been stated by East DMC that appointment of Special Educator, on contract basis will take atleast 4-5 months and the matter is being monitored by the Hon’ble High Court.

11.  It is a matter of grave concern that even after six years of creation of the posts of special education teachers in the year 2012, and the matter being taken up by this court since May 2015, the three municipal corporations could fill up less than 10% of the posts.  It appears to me that the concerned authorities have not taken effective and innovative steps to ensure that the children with disabilities in different schools are enabled to learn on equal basis with others as mandated by the relevant laws. It is almost crystal clear that even in the ensuing academic session 2018-19 also, the required numbers of candidates for the post of special educators would not be available unless some innovative steps are taken. It is unlikely that the respondents are unaware of the reasons for unavailability of candidates.

12.  In the circumstances, it is recommended that all the respondents should take effective steps and fill up all the sanctioned posts of special education teachers within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and ensure that all the children with disabilities in the schools are provided with the services of special education teachers and all other teaching learning resource material on equal basis with other children. The respondents are also advised to consider introducing some innovative ways of optimizing utilization of the services of special education teaches, as a single education teacher trained in a single disability would not be able to do justice to the children with other disabilities or those with multiple disability. A cluster and resource pooling approach within reasonable limit of geographical area could be adopted so that individual need based support can be ensured to each child with disability. While doing, transport needs of the children be kept in view. It is also recommended that Rehabilitation Council of India may also be consulted with regard to availability of qualified special education teachers. This court be informed of the action taken as required under section 81 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

13.        The Complaint is disposed of.

14.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 04^th day of May,

2018.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

                                       State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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: