Friday, June 14, 2019

Dr. Ram Kishan Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors | Case No. 4/649/2014-Wel/CD/2726-2737 | Dated:13.06.2019




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] 

1.    Case No. 4/649/2014-Wel/CD/2726-2737         Dated:13.06.2019

In the matter of:

Dr. Ram Kishan,
224, Sarai Pipal Thala,
Delhi-110033.                                                             …..Complainant
                                     
Versus

Dy. Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation (City Zone),
S.P. Zone,
New Delhi-110006.                                               .......Respondent No.1

Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic),
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg,
Toda Pur, Opposite Pusa
Delhi 110012                                                        .......Respondent No.2

Chief Engineer (East) PWD Roads,
3rd Floor, MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.                                               .......Respondent No.3

Dy. General Manager (Delhi Gate), MTNL
2nd Floor, Room No. 27, Telephone Exchange,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110022.                            .......Respondent No.4
         
Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.                          ..….Respondent No.5


2.    Case No. 370/1101/2018/07/                            Dated:


In the matter of:

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi,
H.No. B-241, Gali No. 11, B Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi-110084.                            …..Complainant
                                     
Versus

The Ex. Engineer (Civil), PWD, GNCTD,
Lok Nayak Setu, Western Yamuna Bank,
ITO, New Delhi-02.                                              .......Respondent No.1

The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre,
New Delhi-110002.                                            .......Respondent No. 2

The DCP (Central)
Delhi Traffic Police,
Kamla Market Police Station,
New Delhi-02.                                                    .......Respondent No.3

The Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
Delhi-02.                                                           .......Respondent No.4
                             
Date of hearing: 03.06.2019
Present:   Sh. Anish Mehta, GM (East) alongwith Sh. Rajesh Jetly, AM DG and Sh. Susheel Kumar Sharma for MTNL.
                 Sh. Lokesh Kumar Meena for PWD.
                

ORDER

Dr. Ram Kishan, Ms. Seema, Ms. Sandhya and Sh. Sandeep Kumar vide their joint complaint dated 23.05.2014 submitted that the current location of the office of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of NCT Delhi was totally inaccessible due to encroachment of roads despite Govt. of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi emphasizing on the need to make public offices, hospitals, schools etc. easily accessible to persons with disabilities.  The right of way on Ranjit Singh Marg and Mirdard Marg has been fully encroached by motor repair workshops, vendors and hawkers making it extremely difficult to access the office of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  These roads are also being used for open defecation/urination and it is a harrowing experience to visit the office.  They requested that the matter should be taken up with North DMC, Delhi Traffic Police and Public Works Department for removal of encroachments.  MTNL had also constructed the pillars in the middle of footpath. 
2.       The then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Sh. K.S. Mehra took up with the Deputy Commissioner, City Zone, North DMC, DCP Central, DCP Traffic Central, Chief Engineer PWD (roads) and Deputy General Manager, MTNL vide notice dated 20.06.2014.  Hearing in this case have been going on since then with very slow progress over the last almost five years.
3.       The sewer lines of this office and the neighbouring areas which are largely encroached, also started chocking.  There have been occasions when entire office would get flooded with sewer and drainage water.  Vehicles had to be deployed to ferry the office staff from outside the Mirdard Complex whenever there was even little rain as the entire road from the intersection to the office would get flooded due to the chocked drainage and sewage line.  The office complex of this Court naturally became a mosquito breeding place throughout the year resulting in the staff often falling sick. 
4.       Another complaint from Dr. Nitish Tripathi, which was registered as case no. 370/1101/2018/07, was received vide email dated 01.07.2018.  He also pointed out that the road leading to the office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is usually occupied by encroachers, unauthorized vehicles and persons with disabilities could be injured.  He requested that all the public roads connecting the office must be barrier free and signal free so that persons with disabilities could visit the office without any hurdles.  Many other wheelchair users, crutch users, persons with blindness, low vision as well as hearing impairment have difficulty in reaching the office.  It is very scary for people with disabilities to cross the road at the traffic intersection at Ranjit Singh Marg.
5.       The efforts to open an entry to the office from Maharaja Ranjit Singh Road have not met with any success as Maulana Azad Medical College to whom a portion of the land belongs has refused to part with any part of it on the ground that the same has been earmarked for setting up of a Child Development Centre, though no activity is seen during the last 7 years.  Consequently, the visitors have to take a circuitous route to reach this office from one of the most congested and encroached areas making it a harrowing experience. 
6.       In view of poor accessibility to the office, persons with disabilities are given the option of being heard on telephone.  While it is good to make the redressal mechanism less demanding; but doing so because of poor accessibility of the office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in the National Capital is a matter of serious concern for all stake holders especially the concerned authorities.   
7.       Sh. K.S. Mehra held 9 hearings in one and a half years besides taking up demi-officially with the Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of North, DMC.  Thereafter, 15 hearings were held. 
8.       Despite all these efforts, the area has filth all around and the encroachment galore.  The footpath along the main road is too high even for an able bodied person to climb up and step down.  The cuts on the footpath have no slopes and are encroached illegally.  The Civic and the Police authorities seem to be ineffective.  The traffic chokes during the entire afternoon on the connecting roads to the office as a large number of people who come to the mosque for prayer on Fridays park their cars, two wheelers, auto-rickshaws.  It used to be a nightmare for people with disabilities to pass though that area. 
9.       During the hearings, I have experienced that the concerned authorities would not take action and wait till the date of next hearing and not feel responsible to proactively comply with the provisions of the Act, the bye-laws and the guidelines, etc.  Action to remove the encroachments is taken only on days closer to the dates of hearings or after the hearings. 
10.     It was only after Smt. Varsha Joshi, joined as the Commissioner of North DMC that effective action on the request of State Commissioner to lay the sewage line was taken and the problem of over flowing sewage has been addressed.  For laying the cemented road connecting the office of the State Commissioner, Officers of PWD who attended the hearings took the initiative and suggested a recommendation of this Court for sanctioning the funds from MLA’s LAD fund. 
11.     During the last nearly 5 years, the Traffic Police has been giving the details of number of persons challaned and the number of vehicles towed away and the North DMC informed about the food hygiene raids conducted; but the primary issue of free and safe access for persons with disabilities to the office of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has not been fully addressed.  MTNL has taken 5 years to remove the pillars and that too after the presence of the General Manager of the area was ordered on 03.06.2019.
12.     It has also been observed that the encroachers—vendors, taxis, autos, rickshaws return soon after the encroachment removal drive is conducted and vehicles are towed away by North DMC and Delhi Police.
13.     Section 45 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ provides as under:
“(1) All existing public buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding five years from the date of notification of such rules:
Provided that the Central Government may grant extension of time to the States on a case to case basis for adherence to this provision depending on their state of preparedness and other related parameters.
(2) The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall formulate and publish an action plan based on prioritisation, for providing accessibility in all their buildings and spaces providing essential services such as all primary health centres, civil hospitals, schools, railway stations and bus stops.”
14.     The time limit for providing services in accordance with the Rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Govt. under Section 40 of the Act for service providers (Govt. as well as private) is two years from the date of notification of such Rules.  Rule 15 of the Rights of Person with Disability Rules 2017 (Rules) notified on 15.06.2017 requires that every establishment (Govt. as well as private) shall comply with the standards for public buildings as specified under the Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development in March 2016.
15.     Section 89 of the Act also provides for punishment for contravention of provisions of the Act or Rules or regulations made thereunder and reads as, “Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 50,000/- but which may extend to Rs. 5,00,000/-.”
16.     This Court registered a suo motu Case No. 4/1665/2017-Wel/CD/ vide notice dated 19.07.2017. In the said case, 14 Departments/ organizations including North DMC and PWD are the respondents.  All the concerned respondent Departments have submitted their respective action plans to make the physical environment and transport accessible for persons with disabilities within the prescribed time limit by 15.06.2022.  A Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has also been constituted to monitor implementation of the Action plans and ensure accessibility of physical environment and in accordance with the prescribed standards.
17.     Despite specific and clear provisions in the Act/Rules/ guidelines and repeated directions, clarifications and training by this Court, the concerned authorities have not been able to ensure barrier free access in accordance with the prescribed standards till date even to the office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in the National Capital.  This actually amounts to contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the guidelines and would attract penal action under Section 89 of the Act.
18.     Although the problem of access to the office of the State Commissioner for Person with Disabilities has not been solved fully, yet it is considered expedient to dispose of the cases as one of them is pending for more than 5 years. 
19.     In light of the above, the following recommendations are made:
i)             The Delhi Police should effectively regulate the traffic at the intersection on Maharaja Ranjit Singh Road by deploying traffic police within 10 days of receipt of this order and ensure compliance of the traffic signals which at present is not complied by the motorists, cycle rickshaws and pedestrians creating a complete chaos.
ii)            Delhi Police should deploy adequate number of personnel to prevent any encroachment and minimise the need for removal of encroachment/unauthorized parking of vehicles within 10 days of receipt of this order.
iii)           Delhi Traffic Police and North DMC should jointly conduct awareness and sensitisation programmes to educate the residents, traders and hawkers and seek their participation in making the area accessible and keeping it clean.
iv)          Delhi Police and North DMC should conduct encroachment removal/ unauthorizedly parked vehicles removal drives more frequently and more effectively to ensure that the road and footpaths are free of barriers for safe movement of persons with disabilities to the office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  It should be ensured that there are no barriers on tactile path laid on the left side of the connecting road to the office, which is meant for independent and safe movement of persons with blindness.
v)            The Police and the civic authorities should revisit the area soon after the raids/drives as most of the encroachers return to their original places shortly after the drive.
vi)          North DMC should ensure that the entire area is free of filth, unauthorized vendors and other barriers to the movement of humans on the foot paths/ roads.
vii)         PWD should install signages “Office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, GNCT of Delhi” at appropriate height and as per the standard prescribed in the Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development, on the left side of the roads at Barakhmba Road traffic intersection Maharaja Ranjit Singh Road before the traffic light and at the Mirdard Road within 30 days of receipt of this order.
viii)        PWD should reconstruct the footpaths on all the nearby roads leading to the office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities strictly as per the prescribed standards within 30 days of receipt of this order.
ix)          DGM, MTNL is directed to properly repair the footpath which has been broken while removing the pillar.
x)            Social Welfare Department should immediately take up with the MAMC, North DMC, PWD etc. to open an entry to the office of State Commissioner from Maharaja Ranjit Singh Road and, if necessary, intervention of the Chief Secretary should be sought within 30 days of receipt of this order.
20.     Action taken on the above recommendations be intimated within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
21.     All the concerned respondents are advised to take appropriate action within the prescribed time as otherwise, it would amount to contravention of the provision of Section 81 of the Act and attract action under Section 89 of the Act.  Section 81 of the Act is reproduced below:
“Whenever the State Commissioner makes a recommendation to an authority in pursuance of clause (b) of section 80, that authority shall take necessary action on it, and inform the State Commissioner of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation:
Provided that where an authority does not accept a recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non-acceptance to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities within the period of three months, and shall also inform the aggrieved person.”
22.     The complaints are disposed off.
23.     Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 13th June, 2019.
  
                                                                 (T.D. Dhariyal)
           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to :
1.    Sh. Anish Mehta, GM, MTNL, Tis Hazari Telephone Exchange. Email: gme@bol.net.in

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Vandana Thakur Vs. DDA & Anr | Case No. 635/1083/2018/12/2742-2743 | Dated:13.06.2019




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. 635/1083/2018/12/2742-2743                   Dated:13.06.2019

In the matter of:

Ms. Vandana Thakur,
Mother of Km. Neha Vats,
Flat No.402, Naval Technical Officers CGHS,
Plot No.-3A, Sector-22, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110077.                                             ....……… Complainant
    
Versus

The Deputy Director (Building) L&I,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.                                     .............. Respondent No.1


The President,
Naval Technical Officers CGHS,
Plot No.-3A, Sector-22, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110077.                                        ..………Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:       07.06.2019

Present:      Ms. Vandana Thakur, Mother of Km. Neha Vats, complainant alongwith her husband, Sh. Someshwar Thakur.
                   Sh. Praveen K. Dhamija, Dy. Director (Bulilding) alongwith Sh. Roshan Lal, Asstt. Engineer (Building) for Respondent no. 1.
                   Sh. Akhilesh Dixit, Adv. for Respondent no. 2
                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Sagoo, Member of NTO CGHS Ltd.


order
The above named complainant, mother of Ms. Neha Vats, a person with intellectual disability (IQ 50-55) vide her complaint dated 30.11.2018 submitted that she is a resident of Flat no. 402, Naval Technical Officers CGHS Ltd. Plot no. 3 A, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi for the last 7 years.  The said flat originally belongs to her brother Sh. Vivek Sharma.  Her daughter, Ms. Neha Vats who is now 20 years of age has been advised to be kept on the ground floor as there is a possibility of her jumping from the upper floors.  She also needs to be kept in a separate room under care to ensure that she should not get hyper and cause any physical injury to herself or others.  She requires supervision of an adult person through out of her life and sometimes she is not aware whether she is wearing clothes or not.  Therefore, extra care on 24x7 basis is required to keep her moods and emotions under control.  She needs high support in terms of physical and psychological needs for daily activities.  She cannot do her daily routine work including responding to the nature’s calls or wearing clothes, bathe etc. 
2.       The complainant has further stated that Flat no. 402 is located at the ground floor near the back gate of the Society and there is general movement of people near the room where Ms. Neha Vats has been placed due to the location of ventilation of the room.  There is always a threat of interference with her privacy as the room has a window to the open area.  In order to protect her privacy and from people peeping into the room due to the noise and her cries, the room was temporarily covered by providing temporary wall in the year 2011.  The area is L shaped and it already has roof of the first floor on the top.  Her brother, Sh. Vivek Sharma decided to renovate/repair the house keeping in view the requirements of Ms. Neha and a private contractor was engaged in 2018.  However, the respondent no. 2 arbitrarily got the work stopped denying reasonable accommodation to Ms. Neha.  Her brother approached and requested for temporary coverage to Delhi Development Authority, Registrar Cooperative Societies and the Managing Committee of Naval Technical Officers CGHS.  She also met the concerned officers in the office of Vice Chairman, DDA who advised her to approach this Court. The complainant further submitted that the Managing Committee has decided to get temporary coverage demolished. 
3.       The complainant requested to direct the respondent to regularize and approve the temporary coverage against the fee as per law which has been done to meet the specific needs of Ms. Neha.  She also requested that respondent no. 2 should not interfere and demolish the temporary coverage and should not restrict the entry of workers carrying out the renovation work and not cause any hindrance in peaceful living of Ms. Neha.
4.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide show cause notice dated 21.12.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ followed by reminder dated 09.01.2019. 
5.       Respondent no. 2 vide short reply dated 04.01.2019 inter-alia submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and tried to use this forum to achieve her illegal hold of encroachment upon the common area meant for all members of the society.  The society is under obligation to follow the rules, bye-laws applicable in National Capital Territory as set out by respondent no. 1, DDA.  No member/occupant of any flat has the power to violate the norms by making changes in the original structure of the building.  The complainant is not a member of the Society as such she has no right, title or interest has accrued to her.  Her status is that of merely a relative or guest.  Complainant has herself admitted encroachment in the common area.  Sh. Vivek Sharma has converted his 3 bed room flat into a 4 bed room flat.  Therefore, his name has not been sent to Registrar Cooperative Societies for regularization.  It has further been submitted that for regularizing illegal encroachment, the appropriate forum is the Monitoring Committee constituted by Hon’ble Supreme Court and not this forum.  It has also been alleged that action of the complainant amounts to breaking of the law. The complainant approached Registrar Cooperative Societies, DDA and also the Police to legalize her encroachment on the common area of the Society.
6.       Assistant Director (Group Housing Societies) vide letter dated 29.03.2019 forwarded the summons of this Court dated 20.02.2019 to Deputy Director (Building) L&I for necessary action as the matter pertains to that Department. 
7.       Upon considering the replies of the respondent and the rejoinder of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 03.04.2019. 
8.       During the hearing on 03.04.2019, Sh. Praveen K. Dhamija, Deputy Director (Building) L&C who appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1, submitted that addition/alteration in the flat (Varandah) can be regularised against payment of compounding payment provided the society applies for it and addition/alteration is within the FAR and as per the UBBL, 2016 and MPD, 2021.  Until then, they have no role in the matter.
9.       The complainant reiterated her written submissions and stated that her case is unique where safety, dignity and provision of reasonable accommodation of a girl child with intellectual disability is involved. Therefore, DDA should consider her request for regularisation of addition/alteration without the requirement of going through the society particularly in view of the fact that society may not be willing to apply.  She stated that her name has been endorsed by the Society on the reverse of the Share Certificate No.629 which indicates that in the course of time, she will become the owner/co-owner of the flat.
10.     None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2 despite summons.    The President of the Management Committee of Naval Technical Officers CGHS was directed to submit whether the society would apply for regularisation of the additions/alterations involved in the interest of the girl child with intellectual disability on or before the next date of hearing  and ensure his/her presence on 30.04.2019.
11.     On 30.04.219, Sh. Rajender Arya, advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 and submitted the objections to the maintainability of the complaint.   According to respondent no. 2, the relief sought by the complainant is beyond the scope of Section 5 of the Act which pertains to community living and prohibits award of any special relaxation by way of unauthorised construction at the cost of indiscipline, encroachment, unauthorized construction to be done in a community living and therefore the State Commissioner has no power to allow any person with disability to violate the Building Bye-laws.  Sh. Arya submitted that he would argue the matter on merit.
12.     The complainant stated that two of the three bedrooms in the flat open to the drawing room and are close to the main entrance of the flat.  The third room in which her disabled daughter has been placed is the only suitable room as it is at the back side of the flat and is away from the main gate with attached bathroom. A wall has been erected below the balcony of the first floor flat creating space for a window on the side wall which ensures cross ventilation and also blocks the direct view into the room which is absolutely essential for protecting her privacy.  This was done as the window of that room directly opens towards the pathway and the passersby become curious and peep into the room as her daughter has frequent mood swings and cries. Since this is the safest arrangement for her stay in the flat, she is prepared to pay compoundable amount for which there is a provision.
13.     On 29.05.2019, the complainant submitted a copy of the ‘WILL’ registered on 28.05.2019 executed by Sh. Vivek Sharma, owner of Flat No. 402, Naval Technical Officers CGHS, Plot No. 3A, Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi -110077 in favour of his sister Ms. Vandana Thakur, the complainant herein that after his death, the said property shall be owned by her. The complainant therefore stated that any facility that is being created in the flat is primarily for the benefit / security/ privacy of Ms. Neha Vats. 
14.     Sh. K.K. Ahuja, Clerk of Sh. Rajender Arya, advocate who had appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 on the last date of hearing submitted that new Managing Committee of the Naval Technical Officers CGHS has been elected and Sh. Arya is awaiting instructions from the new Managing Committee.  He therefore requested for adjournment.  As this complaint has been pending since November, 2018, the matter was adjourned to 07.06.2019 and the parties were directed to make their submissions on that day failing which the complaint would be disposed off based on available record.    
15.     During the hearing on 07.06.2019, Dr. Rakesh, Secretary of Naval Technical Officer CGHS Ltd on behalf of respondent no. 2 filed written submissions.  The relevant exptract of the same is reproduced below:
“That as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 03.04.2019 in case no. 635/1083/2018/12, we also submit that we will apply to Delhi Development Authority for construction/addition of one Room in each 198 Nos. Of Three Bed-Room flat, including Flat No 402, Membership No. 629, to take advantage of increased Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) which has been enhanced in Delhi as per “unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi 2016” (UBBL), and MPD, 2021. Necessary direction may also please be issued to Delhi Development Authority in this regard.”
16.     The complainant stated that while this would meet her requirement, various actions that need to be taken at different stages should be executed within the minimum time frame as the Society can apply after the agenda is approved in the General Body Meeting of the Society. 
17.     Sh. Jaswant Singh Sagoo, who appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2, stated that a Special General Body Meeting will be called within three months and the decision will be conveyed to the complainant and the Society will apply to DDA as per the requirement within one month thereafter. 
18.     Sh. Parveen Dhamija, Deputy Director (Building) stated that Society needs to apply online for addition/alteration and the approval of the Competent Authority will be communicated within one month after all the deficiencies, if any, are removed.
19.     In light of the submissions of the respondents and the fact that addition/ alteration within the FAR and as per UBBL, 2016 and MPD 2021, is permissible as submitted by the representative of the DDA, the following recommendations are made:
(i)       Respondent no. 2 shall issue notice for convening a Special General Body Meeting of the society within 10 days and hold the meeting within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Respondent no. 2 will then apply online to DDA along with all the necessary documents within 20 days month from the date of holding the Special General Body Meeting.
(ii)      DDA shall convey its decision /approval to the Society within 20 days from the date of receipt of online application with the required documents.  
20.     An action taken report shall be submitted to this Court by all concerned within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
21.     The complainant during the hearing expressed her apprehension about any adverse action being taken by the respondents.  In light of the written and oral submissions of the parties, respondent no. 1 and 2 are advised not to take any adverse action.
22.     The complaint is disposed of.
23.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13th day of June, 2019.





           (T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Lily Roy Vs. DCP (West District) & Anr. | Case No. 417/1111/2018/08/2618-2620 | Dated:07.06.2019




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. 417/1111/2018/08/2618-2620                Dated:07.06.2019

In the matter of:
Ms. Lily Roy
Mother of Sh. Satyajeet Roy (Victim),
Kali Bari Mandir, Near Chhoti Sabzi Mandi,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.                               ......Complainant
                                                          Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
West District,
Police Station Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027                                        ........Respondent No. 1
Deputy Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
(West District), Shivaji Palace,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027                      .......Respondent No. 2

ORDER

          The above named complainant m/o Sh. Satyajit Roy, a person with 100% hearing impairment vide her complaint dated 06.08.2018 addressed to Hon’ble Chief Minister, Delhi with a copy to this court submitted that her son was working from his PCO booth since 2009 in Ashok Vihar, Delhi. On 19.07.2018, her son’s PCO booth, the only source of the family’s income, was not found.  She lodged a complaint at Hari Nagar Police Station on 20.07.2018.  But police authorities did not take any action.  She also approached ACP, Rajouri Garden.  Still no action was taken.  She therefore requested for help.

2.       The complaint was taken up with DCP (West Distt.) vide notice dated 21.08.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to the Act followed by reminder dated 04.10.2018.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 14.12.2018. In the meantime DCP (West Distt.) informed vide letter dated 11.12.2018 that an enquiry was got conducted in the matter through ACP/ Rajouri Garden which revealed that the case vide e-FIR No. WD-HN-000642 dated 13.09.2018 under section 379 IPC had been registered at PS Hari Nagar.  Statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. CCTV footage were also searched.  But nothing was found. Further investigation in the case was in progress.  It was also stated that some lapses were found on the part of the SHO, Hari Nagar and an explanation had been issued to Inspector Vijender Singh vide letter dated 07.12.2018 for his lapses.  Respondent No. 1 was advised to expedite the investigation Vide R.O.P dated 20.12.2018.  

3.       Thereafter 3 more hearings on 31.12.2018, 05.03.2019 and 08.04.2019 were held.  During the intervening period status quo with regard to any clue of the PCO booth remained and as per the police, the investigation was still in progress despite the fact that as per the complainant and Sh. Davender Singh who accompanied her in one of the hearings, the booth was dismantled between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 PM on 18.07.2018, yet the scrap dealer beside the house of Sh. Manmohan Singh told the complainant that he did not see any one taking away the booth.  Besides this, there had been inconsistent and contradictory statements coming in from different quarters.  Therefore the complainant conveyed that she suspected Sh. Manmohan Singh, his two sisters and the scrap dealer.  During the intervening period, complainant’s husband also expired on 26.12.2018 due to disease and for want of proper food and her disabled son had no means to earn their livelihood.  The suggestion of this Court to the Deputy Commissioner (West Zone), Rajouri Garden, SDMC to provide the complainant’s son some immediate relief by allotting a seized or abandoned PCO booth to enable him to earn for his and his mother’s survival has also not been implemented till date.  This court even requested the Office of Hon’ble Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment to provide the complainant/her son some financial assistance from the Minister’s Discretionary Fund which also was not materialised.    

4.       It is difficult to accept the report of the police that they could not get any clue about the PCO booth of the complainant’s son for so long.  From the development and proceedings of this case it has been observed that none of the concerned authorities have tried to go a little extra mile to help the complainant and her son who are without any source of income except the disability pension of Rs.2500/- and are running from pillar to post for help.

5.       In the facts and  circumstances of the case, DCP (West District) is directed to conclude the investigation and provide relief to the complainant.  Deputy Commissioner, West Zone, SDMC is once again advised to make genuine efforts to help the complainant Sh. Satyajit Roy, a person with disability to earn his livelihood.

6.       The complaint is disposed of.

7.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 6th day of June, 2019.



(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)