1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.03.2016
CORAM
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
W.P.No.25124 of 2005
Rajiv Rajan

.. Petitioner
-vs-

Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road,
New Delhi-110 001.

.. Respondent

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to
enforce the provisions of Sections 44 and 46 of the The Persons With
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
For Petitioner

: Ms.Annie Mamilly
for
M/s.Surana & Surana

For Respondent

: Mr.V.Radhakrishnan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar
*****
ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

We have passed a separate order in M.P.No.202 of 2011
seeking modification of the directions contained in paragraph 6 of the

2
order dated 14.09.2006.

Comprehensive directions have also been

issued on 14.09.2006 and we feel that the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed in terms of those directions. Ordered accordingly.

2. We are now only concerned with the implementation of

these directions and we would have expected that the issue would
have been over by now since a decade has elapsed.

The ground

reality, however, appears to be to the contrary.

3. We are of the view that in order to seek effective

implementation of these directions, we should be assisted by the State
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, apart from the Advocate
Commissioner who has assisted the Court earlier and is present today
and has carried on this as a voluntary work without any compensation.
The copy of the directions dated 14.09.2006 and our order be issued
to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to verify the
position about the compliance of the directions. The petitioner is free
to place additional material which is stated to have been collected,
before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and
interact with him to assist in the assessment of the position and in this
behalf, consultation may also be had with the Advocate Commissioner
Mr.Tamilmani.

3
4. The respondent department should also place before us
the scheme which would have been framed under the directions dated
14.09.2006, specifying the period of three months for the same. If no
such scheme is framed despite lapse of a decade, such scheme be
framed within fifteen days and placed before us by the next date of
hearing, failing which we will initiate contempt proceedings against the
concerned officers of the respondent-Railways.

5. List for compliance on 27.04.2016.

Index
: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bbr
Note: Order copy be issued in three days.
To
The Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road,
New Delhi-110 001.

(S.K.K., CJ.) (M.M.S, J.)

16.03.2016

4
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
and
M.M.Sundresh, J.
bbr

W.P.No.25124 of 2005

16.03.2016