Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
Under challenge in the instant writ petition are two orders passed by the District Magistrate/Additional Commissioner for the Persons with Disabilities appointed under the relevant provisions of the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Equal Opportunities Act,1995') on 25.02.2009 and 08.06.2010 contained in Annexure nos. 2 and 1 respectively as annexed with the writ petition.
The sole question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the complaint made by the petitioner before the Commissioner for the Persons with Disabilities was maintainable for his decision or not ?
Section 59 of the Equal Opportunities Act,1995 reads as under :-
"59. Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 58 the Chief Commissioner may of his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints with respect to matters relating to;
a. deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities;
b. non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-law, regulations,executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities, and take up the matter with appropriate authorities."
A perusal of the aforesaid quoted Section 59 of the Equal Opportunities Act,1995 reveals that the Commissioner for the Persons with Disabilities under the aforesaid Act can inquire into the complaint preferred by an aggrieved person in regard to the protection of rights of persons with disabilities or with regard to non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Government and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities and to take up such matters with appropriate authorities.
The issue which falls for determination by this Court is as to whether the nature of allegations contained in the complaint and the redressal sought therein, as can be deciphered from the contents of the complaint made by the petitioner before the Commissioner for the Persons with Disabilities, falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 59 of the Equal Opportunities Act,1995 for his action thereon or not ?
The facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner who is the wife of one Ravindra Kumar Sinha is resident of House No.E-I V-6, Sector 'G', Aliganj Extension, Lucknow, made a complaint on 07.03.2005( as mentioned in the impugned order dated 25.02.2009), with the allegation that she was appointed in the Bank of India in the year 1987 within the quota meant for handicapped persons and was married to the said Shri Ravindra Kumar Sinha, a resident of House No. 747.N.2, Aliganj Extension, Lucknow in the month of January, 1993. In the complaint, she further alleged that at the time of her marriage, she was living in a rented accommodation and thereafter, she purchased a piece of land measuring 420 Sq' Feet bearing Plot No. N/2/747 situated at Aliganj Extension Scheme , Aliganj Ward, Lucknow from one Shri K.C.Singh son of Shri R.N.Singh by means of sale-deed dated 22.04.1994. She also stated that the said plot was allotted to Shri K.C.Singh by the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow and further that she had taken a loan of Rs. 1.5 Lac from the Bank for the purpose of purchasing the said plot and had constructed a double storied house thereon. She also stated that the said house was hypotheticated with the Bank.
In her complaint, the petitioner also stated that her husband is forcibly occupying the house constructed by her and further that her husband has been physically and mentally torturing her and accordingly, she prayed that the husband of the petitioner be evicted from the house in question and the possession of the house be handed over to her.
The complaint lodged by the petitioner though described as dated 07.03.2005 in the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 appears to be actually dated 11.10.2004 as is apparent from the said complaint which has been annexed as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition.
A perusal of the complaint lodged by the petitioner reveals that she has not been in good terms with her husband. It further reveals that the grievance of the petitioner is that her husband has forcibly been occupying the house constructed by her and she needs the same to her own use and therefore, appropriate steps be taken for eviction of the husband and further that she be given possession of the house.
As mentioned above, Section 59 of the Equal Opportunities Act,1995 not only empowers but casts a duty on the Commissioner for the Persons with Disabilities to look into the complaints in respect of the matters pertaining to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and also in respect of non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-law, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities. The Commissioner thus, has been vested with the jurisdiction to look into the complaint if, the same pertains to deprivation of rights of the persons with disabilities and if the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that a person with disability is being deprived of her rights or laws, rules, bye-law, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions etc. issued for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities are not being followed then the Commissioner shall take up the matter . The said provisions does not empower the Commissioner to pass orders for eviction and possession etc..
As discussed above, the contents of the complaint are such that make it clear that redressal in respect of deprivation of rights of the petitioner as a person with disability has been sought, neither the petitioner is complaining of non-implementation of any welfare scheme or law or rule of Regulation framed for her protection.
From the aforesaid discussion, it is patently clear that the complaint made by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of Section 59 of the Equal Opportunities Act,1995, hence, the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.
The order dated 08.06.2010 passed on an application for review moved by the petitioner also thus, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition thus, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2012 RK/*