SALIL CHATURVEDIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                          [2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 505


                               SAUL CHATURVEDI                              A
                                         v.
                            UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                           (W. P. (C) No. 576 of 2004)

                                 MARCH 4, 2009
                                                                            B
           [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J. M.
                            PANCHAL, JJ.]

                SOCIAL JUSTICE:
              PERSONS      WITH      DISABILITIES (EQUAL                    c
           OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL
           PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995:
                ss. 43 and 62 - Appropriate Government to frame
    '; .   Scheme for allotment of land to persons with 'disabilities - D
           HELD: Statements of State Governments indicate that only
           marginal benefits are being given to persons with disabilities
           - State Governments/local authorities directed to allot lands
           at concessional rates to persons with disabilities, with
           preferential treatment, for the purposes indicated in s. 43 -
                                                                          E
           Court has already directed for appointment of Chief
           Commissioners/Commissioners to look into the complaints
           of non-compliance of s.43 - Public Interest Litigation -
'   ••     Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32.
               CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Civil No.        F
           576 of 2004.
               Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
               Prashant Bhushan, Anil Katiyar Gopal Prasad, Ravinder
           K. Adsure, Avijit Bhattarcharjee, R. Sathish, S. Ravi Shankar,
                                                                            G
     ,/,   Gopal Singh, Hemantika Wahi, S.S. Banthla, Ranjan
           Mukherjee, Ravindra Kumar, Sanjay R. Hedge, J.S. Attri, M.T.
           George, P.H. Parekh, Corporate Law Group, J.K. Bhatia,
           Aroutham Aruna & Co., R. Ayyam Perumal, Niranjana Singh,
           D. Bharti Reddy, Rajesh Srivastava, KH Nobin Singh, Arun K.
                                       505                                  H
    506     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Sinha, Manish K. Saran, V.G. Pragasam, D.S. Mahra, J.K.
    Bhatia, R. Sattish, J.P. Das, Sumita Hazarika, Parveen
    Swarup, T.V. George, Anil Shrivastava
          The Order of the Court was delivered

B                                ORDER
    W.P.(C) N0.576/2004
       The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,                  "
  Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (Act No.1
  of 1996) passed by the Parliament and it came into force with
c effect from 7.2.1996. The petitioner under Public Interest
  Litigation filed this petition alleging that despite the
  commencement .of this Act No.1 of 1996, many of the State
  Governments or the local authorities in the various States have
  not fully implemented Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 of the
D Act reads as follows:

                "43. Schemes for preferential allotment of land for
          certain purposes.- The appropriate Government and local
          authorities shall be notification frame schemes in favour
          of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment
E
          of land at concessional rates for -
           (a)   house;
           (b)   setting up business;

F          (c)   setting up of special recreation centres;
           (d)   establishment of special schools;
           (e)   establishment of research centres;
           (f)   establishment of factories by entrepreneurs
G                disabilities."
       This Court issued notice to the various State Governments         '' '

  and the State Governments have filed counter affidavit and also
  indicated various steps taken by the respective Government to
  implement Section 43 of the Act. Some of the States have
H candidly admitted that they have not implemented Section 43
        SAUL CHATURVEDI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 507

     of the Act. For example, the State of Arunachal Pradesh stated      A
     that this is not so far implemented in the State. Some of the
     State Governments stated that Section 43 was partially
     implemented and for allotment of land for certain purposes as
     indicated in Section 43, some percentage of reservation made
     in favour of disabled persons. By the statements of the State       B
     Governments, it appears that only marginal benefit sare given
     as indicated in Section 43 of the Act. No State has come
·,   forward with specific plea that schemes have been formulated
     either by the State or by the local authorities and percentage
     of reservation has already been made in favour of the disabled      c
                                           0
     persons.
           Under the above circumstances, we direct that whenever
     the State Governments or local authorities allot land for various
     purposes indicated in Section 43 of the Act and various items
     indicated in Section 43, preferential treatment be given to the     D
.+
A•   disabled persons and the land shall be given at concessional
     rate. The percentage of reservation may be left to the discretion
     of the State Governments/loc0I authorities. However, total
     percentage of disabled persons shall be taken into account
     while deciding the percentage. The Act has also been provided       E
     for appointment of Chief Commissioner to look after the
     complaints of person with disabilities. Section 62 enables the
     Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to matters
..   relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities .
          We had already directed various State Governments to           F
     appoint Chief Commissioner as well as Commissioner and if
     any person feel that the State Governments/local authorities are
     not extending the benefits to the persons who are entitled to
     get such benefits under Section 43 of the Act, he would be at
     liberty to make complaint to the appropriate authorities as         G
     envisaged under the provisions of the Act.
'
            The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
     R.P.                                  Writ Petition disposed of.
                                                                         H