Disposed

Indradhanu the Non Governmental Organization Thr. Its Secty., and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 11 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2013PIL/42/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court monitored a PIL regarding the implementation of a 2005 Government Resolution for barrier-free access for the disabled. Finding that most respondents had complied and only minor lapses remained, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the Divisional Commissioner to lodge FIRs against those blocking ramps.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the office of the Divisional Commissioner to lodge FIRs against persons blocking ramps and impose heavy fines. Respondents directed to install display boards warning of heavy fines. Petit

Indradhanu the Non Governmental… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Pil42.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

Public Interest Litigation No.42/2010

¶5

“Indradhanu” the non-Governmental Oroganization, thr. its Secretary Prakash Vishnu Sohoni, registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1951, bearing Registration No.F-5453, having its registered office at “Shiv Mudra”, 78, Atre Layout, ring road, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur 440 022.

¶6

Shri P. N. Andhare, aged about 66 years, occ. Retired Scientist, r/o 55, RBI Colony, Jaiprakash Nagar, Nagpur-440 025. .....PETITIONERS ...V E R S U S...

¶7

The Union of India, thr. its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Central Government, New Delhi.

¶8

The Union of India, thr. its Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Central Government, New Delhi.

¶9

The Chief Commissioner of Disabilities, Sarojini House, 6, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi-1.

¶10

The Indian Institute of Architects, thr. its Chairman, Nagpur Centre, Shriram Towers, Station Road, Nagpur.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra thr. its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400 032.

¶12

The Public Works Department, thr. Chief Engineer, Nagpur.

¶13

Pil42.10

¶14

¶15

7.	The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) thr. its Municipal Commissioner, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
8.	The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) Nagpur, thr. its Chairman, Station Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
9.	The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, thr. its Chairman, Nepeansee road, Mumbai.
10.	The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, thr. its Chairman, “M.V. Bhavan”, Mumbai.
11.	The Central Public Works Department, thr. Superintending Engineer, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur.
12.	The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
13.	N. S. S. Nagpur, thr. its Professor, Programme Coordinator, Nagpur University, Guru Nanak Bhavan, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
1.	Mrs. Manisha N. Khawashi, aged 35 years, Occ. Nil, r/o Police Nagar, Hingna Road, Nagpur.
2.	Mrs. Champa J. Patil, aged 64 years, Occ. Nil, r/o Sanjay Nagar, Nagpur. ...INTERVENORS
---- Ms Mr Mr Mr Mr Ms ----	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ T. H. Udeshi, Advocate for petitioner. . S. K. Mishra, A.S.G.I. For respondent nos. 1 to 3. . N. W. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent nos. 5, 6 and 12. . J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent no.7. . V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent no. 10. U. R. Tanna h/f Mr. R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent no.11. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶16

Pil42.10

¶17

¶18

CORAM:- A. P. LAVANDE & A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶19

Date of reserving the order :- February 27, 2013 Date of pronouncing the order :- March 7, 2013

¶20

ORDER (Per : A. B. Chaudhari, J)

¶21

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Non Governmental Organization- Indradhanu, inter alia , for implementation of the Government Resolution dated 05.04.2005. This court issued notices and the respondents to the present petition have filed their separate affidavits from time to time supported by the documents and various charts. This Court also passed various orders from time to time in order to have the said Government Resolution meaningfully implemented. It is not necessary for us to reproduce various earlier orders. Suffice it to say that the monitoring of this PIL since 2010 has yielded quite satisfactory results. It is now almost 2 ½ years that this Court has been monitoring the present PIL.

¶22

On the last occasion, we finally asked the respondents to the present petition and in particular the State Public Works Department, the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and called upon them to file affidavits. They have filed their respective affidavits. We quote paragraph no.2 from the affidavit dated 30.11.2012 filed by respondent no.6-Public Works Department, Nagpur. It reads thus:

¶23

Pil42.10

¶24

¶25

“2. It is submitted that there are 34 Government buildings within the control of Public Works Division, Nagpur Circle and the buildings are now equipped with the facilities for physically handicapped and elderly persons. The work of providing these facilities is completed as on date and all the facilities like making provision of ramp, railings and toilets have been made available for physically handicapped in the said buildings. A chart showing name of the building and the facilities which have been made available in the said buildings is enclosed and marked at Annexure R-I .”

¶26

We quote following portion in para nos. 1 (a) to (c) from the affidavit filed by respondent no.7-NMC, which read thus:

¶27

“1.a) In the old public utility buildings owned by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the necessary compliance as far as feasible in terms of the Regulation would be made within a period of one year.

¶28

b) In relation to old public utility buildings not owned by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the appropriate steps in accordance with law for compliance of the Regulation would be commenced after due verification within a period of one year.

¶29

c) The answering respondent corporation submits that no sanction to the public buildings, government buildings, semi government buildings or buildings of the statutory corporations or bodies etc. will be accorded to new buildings/plans unless there is compliance of the Government Resolution dated 5^th April, 2005 i.e. Appendix T (Regulation No.36) Model building bye-laws to provide facilities for physically handicapped persons as per the

¶30

¶31

Pil42.10

¶32

prevailing Development Control Regulations, 2000 for Nagpur City.”

¶33

We quote paragraphs 3 and 4 from the affidavit of respondent no.8-Nagpur Improvement Trust, which reads thus:

¶34

“3. I further say and submit that in compliance to the Govt. requirements regarding barrier free environment as per Regulation No.36 at Appendix T, it will be strictly complied with by the Nagpur Improvement Trust in respect of the plans submitted to the office of the Nagpur Improvement Trust for new construction for public building and it will be ensured that there is a strict compliance to the requirement of Regulation No.36 at Appendix T.

¶35

4. I further say and submit that in respect of the public buildings owned by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, the compliance of the said Regulation No. 36 will also be undertaken.”

¶36

Reading of the above affidavits clearly show that the respondents have undertaken to implement the said Government Resolution in entirety and with utmost sincerity.

¶37

We then found from the record that other respondents namely Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. had filed affidavits to the same effect for providing required infrastructure for handicapped persons in accordance with the said Government Resolution dated 05.04.2005. We have perused affidavit dated 12.09.2011 filed by the

¶38

¶39

Pil42.10

¶40

petitioners and photographs annexed to herewith which show that the ramp reserved for the disabled and handicapped in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur vide page no. 207 and in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur vide page no. 208, being blocked by motorcycles and car parked there. Resultantly, the handicapped or disabled persons would be restrained from using the ramp. We are surprised to see this happening in the office of Divisional Commissioner at Nagpur and Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. It is, thus clear to us that finally it lies in the realm of the human beings to follow the law come what may have been ordained by law. This is nothing but appalling. We, therefore, leave it to the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur to lodge First Information Report against such persons for doing mischief by blocking the ramp and/or to take such action as is permissible in law including the misconduct in employment, if the mischief is done by its employees and for imposing heavy fine. We further direct the respondents to install display boards at the relevant places to that effect warning of heavy fines.

¶41

Be that as it may, from the affidavits tendered on record as discussed by us, we are satisfied that there is considerable compliance made by the respondents in their respective offices or buildings for the handicapped and, as promised in the affidavit, they would be implementing the Government Resolution dated 05.04.2005 in its true letter and spirit.

¶42

7 Pil42.10

¶43

As stated earlier, it is for the Caretaker and Head Of the Departments of the concerned building(s) to keep the ramps etc. free for use of the disabled and handicapped.

¶44

We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of the present PIL reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach this Court in case of serious lapses in the matter of implementation of the said Government Resolution.

¶45

Public Interest Litigation No. 42/2010 is disposed of

¶46

accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶47

JUDGE JUDGE

¶48

kahale

Indradhanu the Non Governmental Organization Thr. Its Secty., and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indradhanu the Non Governmental Organization Thr. Its Secty., and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe Vs the Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukund Gotiram Adhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Ratnagiri Zilla Jagruk Manch and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Prabhakar Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Anant Joshi and Ors. Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Subhash Anant Joshi and Ors. Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Neru Elumalai Kaundar and 4 Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and 10 Ors.

Shri Gandeo Mahadeo Telang Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Enbee Depositors Welfare Association,Ngp. Vs State of Mah.Thr.Commissioner of Police,Ngp.and Anr.

Shri Devendrakumar Gyanchandji Choudhary and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Collector, Nagpur and 2 Ors,.

Sanjay Moreshwar Phasate and Another Vs State of Mah.Thr.Pso Nagpur and 2 Others

Vidya Shikshan Prasark Mandal Thr. Its Sec. Manoj Moreshwar Pawade Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Othr

Smt Pratibha Manoj Verma and 4 Others Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai and 7 Others

Ramesh Dhondbaji Nagdeve and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Tumsar and Another