Disposed

Sh Ganesh Karnati v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Apr 2022WP(PIL)/69/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of two PILs and two IA petitions regarding vaccination accessibility for differently-abled persons. Citing a recent Supreme Court order requiring a committee to draft comprehensive guidelines, the Court held no further orders were required and disposed of the petitions without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of without costs.

Sh Ganesh Karnati Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

rEL:NGANA HrGH^{couRr t?+} I$ED:IiIEASF lSpeci^{ai' Ciii ginalJ urisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL} ' "'"iwci tHousAND AND TWENTY^TWo

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTIC_ESATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} THE^{HON,BLESRIJUSTICIXBHINANDKUMARSHAVILT}

¶6

WP(PIL)^{NO: 69 OF 2020}

¶7

Between:

¶8

shiva R/o 2-12-'14,^{Ganesh Annapt} ^{l*: :l?"[, Sffijiiffi:,,t?? 3&J;3" "':,:]::::: - Kotl. HYderabad .I:?.:ii.ff AND1,,i,^{j,J* j;,ft ?J;',,Llll,ti""',1?3,,?,".!$H",x'."1hT3fi::,.l[;i'"j;,ft ?J;',,Llll,ti""',1?3,,?,".!$H",x'."1hT3fi::,.l[;i'"}

¶9

Kotl. HYderabad

¶10

.I:?.:ii.ff i,^{j,J* j;,ft ?J;',,Llll,ti""',1?3,,?,".!$H",x'."1hT3fi::,.l[;i'"j;,ft ?J;',,Llll,ti""',1?3,,?,".!$H",x'."1hT3fi::,.l[;i'"}

¶11

irrE*-o"rhi ..'RESPoNDENTS

¶12

Petition^{underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court maybe} pleased to^{issue Writ or Direction preferablyWrit of Mandamus declaringthe} inaction^{of the Respondents No 1 to 5 in implementingthe "Comprehensive} Disability^{lnclusiveGuidelines"issued by the Government of lndia vide} NB/SK/MoSJ&E^{Dated 26.O3.2O2Oforprotectionand safety of DifferentlyAbled} Persons^{(PeoplewithDisabilities) duringthe Covid-l9Pandemic as opposed to} the scheme^{of the Rightsof Personswith DisabilitiesAct' 2016 andas} unconstitutionalforbeinginviolationofArticlesl4and2loftheConstitutionof lndia and^{consequentlydirect the RespondentsNo lto 5 to immediatelytake} appropriate^{steps for strict implementationof the said Guidelines}

¶13

¶14

lA NO: 1 oF²⁰²⁰

¶15

Petition u nder Section^{151 CPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} directtheRespondentsNo.ltoStosensitizethePoliceandotherLockDown Enforcement^{officialsaboutthe special needsof the DifferentlyAbled Persons} (PeoplewithDisabilities)andfurtherarrangeforSpecialPassestothese Disabled;theirCaregiversandServiceProviders'duringthecurrentCovid-19 LockDownintheStateofTelangana,pendingdisposaloftheWritPetition(PlL) in the interest^{of Justice.}

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2020NO: 2 OF 20202 OF 2020OF 20202020

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2020NO: 2 OF 20202 OF 2020OF 20202020 =:-F;iii',on under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} directtheRespondentsNo.1to5toforthwithfacilitatetheHomeDeliveryof Essential Groceries^{and Medicines to the Differently AbledPersons(People with} Disabilities)duringthecurrentCovid.lgLockDownintheStateofTelangana, pending disposal of the^{WritPetition(PlL) in the interest of Justice}

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR}

¶19

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶20

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶21

F AND

¶22

¶23

\V'P^{(PIL)No'69of 2020}

¶24

ORDER: e.'h^{Har'bL tt)' chitJl"tttu 'tdrithOundra Shama)}

¶25

Learned^{GovcrnmentAdvocatehas informed this Court that} as Per^{the ditectionsissued in the matter from time to time' the} State^{Governmenthas made all possible endeavour to vaccinate} speciaily^{abled people, women' children and senior cidzens in the} State.

¶26

Learned^{counsel for the petitiooer has suaightaway drawn} the attention^{of this Coutttowardsorder dzted25'01'2022'} passed^{by the Hon'bleSupremeCourt' in W'P'No'580of 2021 zr'd} sated that^{by the aforesaidorder' the Government of Indiahas} been^{directed to consdrute a commltteeand therefore, no further} orders^{are required to be passed in the presentPublic lnterest} Litigation.

¶27

The aforesaid^{orderreads as under:}

¶28

the order^{ofthis Court} lssulng affidavit^{was initiallY filed} by the notice, a Preliminary This has^{been foiiowed} bya Union of^India' more comPrehensiv e affidavit^{dated 13} Jaouary^2022'

¶29

..4,.

¶30

2 During the course of the hearing, Mr Pankaj Sinha, counsel appeariflg on behalf of the peridoner, highlighted certain concerns: Firstly, it has been submitted that the affidavit of the Union of India indicates that orJy 23,678 disabled persons have been vaccinated which is indicative of the low rate of vaccination fbr the disabled. Secondly, it has been submitted that the persons attending to proper helplines, response. such as The 1075 persons and 1,04, who answer do not tire grve call are^ either unaware of the provision for home vaccination. In some cases, the telephone number is stated to be invalid. Thirdly, it has been submitted that the Co-Win softwarc should have been certified for accessibility by domain experts.

¶31

3 Responding to the above suggestions, NIs Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor Gencral, submits that the figure of 23,618 persons reflccted in the affidavit of the Union of India comprises of t-hose persons who utilized their unique identity disabiliry cards for the purpose of availing o[ vaccinarion.^'Ihe r\dditional So[citor General submitted that ninc IDs acceptable for the purpose of vaccination of rvhich ^rca disability card is one and, hence, the figure of 23,678 persons does not take into account those disabled persons who may have used an alternate lorm of identiry. Apart from the above submission, it has been urged on behalf of the Union of India that pror,rsions have been made for Near-to-Home Vaccinat-ion Centres; and, since November 2021, the Union of India has iaunched the "Hat Ghar Dastak Abhiyan" to eflsure 1,00o/o coverage of eligible beneficiaries with the first dose and vaccination of due beneficiaries with the second dose of vaccines. Moreover, it has been submitted that with the provision for walk in registradon in place, regisuation on the Co-Win portal has become of subsidiary importance. Fina1ly, it has been submitted that the staffat the call cenres and helplines were expected to be drly trained by the State Governmellts so as to facilitatc proper responses to queries.

( {

tI \

4 The --it --r.i issue^{which has been raised bythe} adversarial^{since it emphasisesthe} i"r,io"* need for^{augmentmgthe suPpo-rt} !acdi19s^which ^ for the disabled is ensure^{that access tovaccinatiori} seamless^{basis without} available^{on a} ;;;. inconvenience^{and, preferably,at theirdoot steps'} 5 During the^{tot"st' ofthe hearing'individual} the suggesrions^{have come uP before the t::t]} ^t behest of the^{.ot"t"lit"t"ud ofacceptinghe /} made during^{thecourse ofthe} ;;;'r;;;""s it would^{beappropriate. to deviseL} ;;;.,fr framcwork^{with the engagement ofthe Ministry of} ;;l;i^-l"tt* u"d Etiplttrmeot> - Particularly^the O"urJt,^{ofE'mpowermentofPersons\Mith} suggesrions ;,Jff;^{"' T;. vi*'"vshoulrl} ,.invite i-rJ- 1po.,...^{from uu stake holders and domain} llp.,^{'ln the Lre of disability} that ^ comprehensive^{resPonse in regard to theexr.s ring facilitiesand} ;;;;'"t;il^{for furthepg'udu"tion can be} ,l:Tut"u The exercise^{within a period of} Ministry shall^{carry oul} 'hit threeweeksandthenplac.comprehensiv.ePfoPg-sals before the^{Ministry of Ht'l'h} ^"a^{Familv Welfare'} ifrJ- S".r.,ury^{i,, ti-'t Ministry of Health and Family} Welfare shall^{take aconsideredview ofthe} ir"f".at^{which are formulated by the Ministry of Social} |ustice^{and Empowermentand take a decision on whether any} 'ri"ain.roon o, changes ^re^{required to.. makethe} ;.xlJ;;^{framework Jf} "accit'atiot'^{for the disabled more} L .ii.."i. The setting^{up of thLrs frameworkis not} o t the^{work whichhas} reflection on^the 'i'^*tt ^ir^.-"ay-^{fr"."carriedout, but is iotended.to further bolster} ,t. .?i".,.^{for providing seamless accessto the disabledto the} facilities^{of vaccinadon'} i List the^{Petitionor.23February2022'"}

¶36

In the light^{of the aforesaidorderpassedby the Hon'ble} Supteme^{Court, the preseot \X?EIL)standsdrsposed of'}

No costs.

As a sequel, miscelianeous petitions, pending if an1,, stand

closed

SD/.K.VENKAIAH

ASSI STANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,'1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana' State of Telangana' Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶47

1. i;;'s;;;r chler setietary^{to Government, Health'Ir'4edicaland Familv} - W;l;i" D;partment' oouJinment of Telangana' Secretariat' Hyderabad e. i'nl Fnncipii^{secretbrv, wofien, chitdren,-Disabled and Seniorcitizens} " Oeii'tment, Governm6irtof Telangana, Se-cretariat' Hyderabad' 4 f h5b ii;;i;i ;'i,j^{-dil; i;b} "ei.^{WJtiJi"-"tDi sa bred gqY"',1*-"1} -o! ^ ^^ " ' T;6ft'a*; v,raranguia Sanr<Jsirn1q e!'Wgn, Malakpet' Hvderab-ad 500036

¶48

1. fi;'Dl;;i6ioi^{croi.H"ruhand Famitywetfare, Governmentof Telangana,} Koti, HYderabad

¶49

o. Tr,J',sdciuiiry,^{o"purtrn"nt of Empowerment_of Personswith Disabilities,} - unbn Li rnai5, rrlliriiJrv oi Sociil iustice and Empowerment' New Delhi 7. il;bc^{io Sri'ro'anuri Pavan Kumar,Advocate [oPUCl} B. iffi CC" to^{in" navojaie Oeneiit,Hign Court for the Siate of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

1. Two CD^Copies

¶51

10.One SPare^CoPY MBC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2610412022

J 1
r?E sci
(
k t. I
1? luL 20?2 !c. I
ld
i
*
t o;9,p1rct
ORDER

¶56

WP(PIL).No.69 of²⁰²⁰

¶57

DrsPoslNG oF^{THE WP(PIL)} WIHTOUT COSTS

¶58

\q
o^ x
1\r\v"

Sh Ganesh Karnati v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Ganesh Karnati v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Srinivas Vs The High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad

The District Collector, Khammam and 2 Others Vs Madem Hanumanthu and 6 Others

Telugu Buchamma and 19others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

T. Yakaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

M. Sirisha Vs The Honourable Registrar (Recruitment)

Outlook Publishing (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs the Govt of Telangana., Gad Dept., and 4 Others