Disposed

Firoz v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017WP(C)/11407/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the restriction on travel distance for disability travel concessions. The Court directed the State government to finalize the proceedings regarding uniform concession rates for persons with disability without distance restrictions across all transport modes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to call for opinions from all relevant corners and finalize the proceedings regarding uniform concession rates for persons with disability without distance restrictio

Firoz Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶7

WP(C).No. 11407 of 2016 (S)

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

FIROZ, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.SAID MUHAMMAD, RESIDING AT KIZHIPADINJARU VALAPPIL, ALAMCODE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GROUND FLOOR, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM

¶15

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶16

TC.25/1349, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001

¶17

KERALA URBAN ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, PERUMANOOR PO, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682015

¶18

PRIVATE BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, 680101

¶19

TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

¶20

NGO QUARTERS ROAD, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD, KERALA 682030

¶21

ADDL.R6

¶22

COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, IST FLOOR, GOVT.VTC BUILDING, SOCIAL WELFARE INSTITUTION COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012

¶23

(Impleaded suo motu as additional respondent No.6 vide order dated 30.3.16 in WP(C).)

¶24

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.U NAZAR

¶25

BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No. 11407 of 2016 (S)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE

¶31

P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 200/2012/TRAN. DATED 17TH APRIL, 2012 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶32

P3:A COPY OF THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPED 70% CONCESSION IDENTITY CARD FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED VALID IN CITY, ORDINARY AND FAST PASSENGER ONLY CARD

¶33

P4& P4 (a):A COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 26.11.2014 BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ON THE TRAVEL CONCESSIONS AVAILABLE IN PRIVATE BUSES AND ITS TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH

¶34

P5 &P5 (a):A COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO SRI. OOMEN CHANDY, CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA AND ITS TRANSLATION IN ENGLIGH

¶35

P6 P6 (a) :A COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 26.12.2014 INFORMING THE FORWARDING OF THE MATTER TO SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPT. GOVT. SECRETARIAT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH

¶36

P7 &P7 (a):A COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 24.10.2014 TO MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH

¶37

P8 & P8 (a):A COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 25.11.2014 FROM THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH

¶38

P9:A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPAER REPORT DATED 20.03.2016 (HINDU)

¶39

//True copy//

¶40

P.S to Judge

¶41

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & A.M.BABU, JJ

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).11407 of 2016

¶44

- - - - Dated : 3^rd March, 2017

¶45

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶48

1.The subject matter of this writ petition, sought to be treated as a 'Public Interest Litigation', is for the welfare and wellbeing of the physically disabled persons, who come within the purview of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Act” for short).

¶49

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. Despite completion of service of notice, there is no representation for the Private Bus Owners Association, the 4^th respondent herein.

¶50

3.The sum and substance of the grievance projected

¶51

WP(C).11407/16

¶52

¶53

in the writ petition is that, by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Act, a special consideration is provided in respect of the persons having disability, extending commission and benefits to appropriate extent. Adequate measures have been taken in almost all the relevant spheres and the issue focused in the writ petition is only with regard to the concession in the rates for conveyance in private/public transport stage carriages, without any restriction regarding the distance of travel.

¶54

4.It is pointed out that, the matter was considered by the Government and in respect of persons having 50% disability, some concession was ordered as to the payment of conveyance charges as per G.O(Rt) No.641/81/TF&P dated 23.5.1981. Subsequently, the Government felt the need to expand the zone and in terms thereof, the Commissioner, who was appointed in terms of Section 44 of the Act, made a proposal to the Government to fix the percentage of disability as 40%, instead of 50%. This was considered by the Government and by Ext.P2 G.O.

¶55

WP(C).11407/16

¶56

¶57

(Rt) No.200/2012/Tran. Dated 17.4.2012, the travel concession was extended to eligible persons having 40% or above disability, to travel in City, Ordinary and Fast Passenger Buses in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, to the extent as already permitted. It is stated by the petitioner, pursuant to the information gathered invoking remedy under the Right To Information Act, that similar concession to an extent of 70% is offered in the private sector as well, as done in the KSRTC. But the benefit is limited only to cover a distance of 40 Kms. The grievance of the petitioner is that, this is causing much hardship to the persons for whose benefit it was introduced; more so to the people who are hailing from Northern Districts of Kerala, while travelling to the Southern Districts and back. It is stated that, to complete a travel, such persons with disability will have to get into one Bus and alight at a point after 40 Kms and to complete the journey, they have to get into some other Bus, to avail further benefit. Such grievance was sought to be projected before the Commissioner and also

¶58

WP(C).11407/16

¶59

¶60

the Government; but the petitioner has been let known as per Ext.P8 letter dated 25.11.2014 issued by the Transport Commissioner that the said grievance can be resolved only by way of 'Policy decision' which comes within the purview of the Government. This made the petitioner to approach this Court with the following prayers:

¶61

(i). To issue writ of mandamus or direction to consider Ext.P8 and to take decision on providing concession rates in every stage carriages for persons with disability with 40% or more disability, irrespective of distance of travel in private, public transport buses or KURTC buses.

¶62

(ii). To issue writ of mandamus, declaration, order or direction to create guidelines and standards for disabled people's accessibility to public bus transport after consultation with various groups including groups of persons with disability.

¶63

(iii). To issue writ, declaration, order or direction for taking measures towards ensuring barrier free environment in public bus transportation in Kerala.

¶64

5.When the matter came up for consideration on 30^th March, 2016, this Court passed the following order:-

¶65

“Section 60 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 provides for appointment of Commissioners for Persons with

¶66

WP(C).11407/16

¶67

¶68

Disabilities at the State level. Section 61 of that Act enumerates the powers of the Commissioner. In particular, we see that the Commissioner has the power to take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities and also to submit reports to the State Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as the Government may prescribe. The Commissioner is also obliged to forward a copy of that report to the Chief Commissioner, who is a person appointed by the Central Government under Section 57 of the Act. Here and now, we may advert to Section 44 which deals with non-discrimination in transport. The different schemes that could be generated to support the disabled persons in accordance with the provisions of the aforenoted Act also may required a deeper consideration. Under such circumstances, we suo motu implead the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Kerala as an additional respondent in this writ petition. The Principal Secretary in the Social Justice Department and the Commissioner, who is impleaded as the additional respondent will place on record their views separately through affidavits on or before the next date of hearing.”

¶69

6.Despite a specific direction to file an affidavit by the parties concerned who are already in the party array and also additionally impleaded suo motu, no such affidavit or statement has been filed so far. The matter came up for further consideration on 16^th August, 2016 and the course and events were noted in the following terms:

¶70

“Since the petitioner wants a concessional rate to the disabled travellers who are

¶71

WP(C).11407/16

¶72

¶73

travelling in private buses also, the authorities of the State Government are required to have consultation with owners of Private buses so as to arrive at a uniform conclusion.”

¶74

7.Today, when the matter was taken for further consideration, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Government would like to have some more time to get the matter finalized.

¶75

8.Even though the petitioner has sought to rely on the provisions of the Act, it has come to the notice of this Court that the said Act has now been replaced by virtue of enactment of a new Act. In the said circumstances, the matter will have to be considered with reference to the relevant provisions of law as on date, to safeguard the interest, welfare and well being of the eligible persons.

¶76

9.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to call for the opinion from all the relevant corners and get the proceedings referred to in Ext.P8 finalized, in accordance with law,

¶77

WP(C).11407/16

¶78

after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶79

10.Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶80

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶81

Sd/-

¶82

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Judge

Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/3.3.2017

//True copy//

P.S to Judge

Firoz v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ummer Vs Pottengal Subida

Vichithran Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Ancy Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Rajamma Vs Vijayan

M/S.Bishamber Lal Arora Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Abdul Rafeeq Vs State of Kerala