Madras High Court WP 25124 Of 2005

RAJIV RAJAN vs UoI Railways

Table of Contents
STATUS ........................................................................................... 1
16/03/2016 ..................................................................................... 1
27/04/2016 ..................................................................................... 4
28/06/2016 ..................................................................................... 4
12/08/2016 ..................................................................................... 5
02/09/2016 ..................................................................................... 6

STATUS
Case Status : Disposed
Status Of :
WRIT PETITION 25124 Of 2005
Litigants :
MR. RAJIV RAJAN, Vs. UNION OF INDIA,
Pet's Adv :
M/S.SURANA AND SURANA
Res's Adv :
M/S.V.G.SURESH KUMAR
Last Date of Hearing :
--Next / Final Date of Hearing :
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Case Updated On : Thursday, March 17, 2016
Category :
Publice Interest Litigation
Connected Application(s)
WPMP 202
2011
WPMP 202 Of 2011 UNION OF INDIA, Vs. MR. RAJIV RAJAN ,Click Here

16/03/2016
WP No.25124 of 2005
The Hon`ble The CHIEF JUSTICE and
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

MR. RAJIV RAJAN,

DOOR NO.5, GOLDEN PLAZA, 60 & 61, M.M.
RAMASWAMY STREET, JAFFERKHANPET,
CHENNAI-83.
Vs
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY,S RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110 001.

Since the records of this case were lost, and have been subsequently
traced out, it is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
original respondent-Railways that the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition is
not available in the records, but had been filed.
2.
The application filed in the year 2011 seeks modification of the
directions contained in paragraph 6(iii) of the order dated 14.09.2006
passed in the writ petition.
3.
We may note that the petition deals with the issue of providing
facilities for two Stations in Chennai and in the trains passing through the
Stations qua persons with special needs, invoking the provisions of The
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995.
4.

The said direction reads as under:6 (iii) The respondent is directed to install at both the stations an
assistance booth to help the disabled people who are travelling
independently. We also direct that the disabled persons, who are
accompanied by an escort, should not be denied the concession for
the disabled. (emphasis supplied)

5.
It is the later part of the direction with which the original
respondent-Railways seems to be aggrieved and seeks recall. The reasons
for the same are set out in paragraph 4 of the application, which is
extracted hereinafter:4. In the further compliance report filed by the administration, it
has been submitted that in so far as providing concession for the
disabled persons, who are not accompanied by an escort is
concerned, the same is a policy matter and in view of the financial
implications, the Ministry had submitted that it would not be
possible to increase the scope of concession being granted to
disabled persons. The concession is applicable only to
orthopaedically handicapped / paraplegic persons / patients, who
cannot travel without the assistance of an escort. The emphasis is
only to show that the concession is to be availed only by the
handicapped persons, who are incapable of travelling alone. Thus,

in effect, a handicapped person, who cannot travel without the

assistance of an escort, is alone entitled to the concession. A
person, whose handicap is to such an extent or level that he is
incapable of travelling alone, is alone entitled to the benefit of
concession and the same cannot be extended to all persons
irrespective of the level of handicap. This would result in even
persons with minor handicap, who are otherwise fully capable,
seeking to avail the concession which will result in extended benefit
for numerous persons. The Commercial Circular No.15 of 2007
issued by the Ministry of Railways and the notification under rate
advice No.2 of 2007 issued by the Zonal Railway are filed herewith
as annexures.
6.
We are amazed at the lack of sensitivity and foresight of the
deponent in seeking such modification. In nutshell, what is sought to be
suggested is that the concession is applicable only to Orthopaedically
handicapped/paraplegic persons/patients who cannot travel without the
assistance of an escort. In such situation, the benefit is extended to both
the persons and the escort and the subsequent Government Order is also
stated to have been issued to the effect that there can be a single escort
for two such persons. What is sought to be canvassed is that if a
physically challenged person is travelling on his own without an escort,
then the benefit of concession stands withdrawn even to that person,
although he is covered under the provisions of the said Act! The rationale
given for the same is that this is a matter of policy and is a commercial
aspect!
7.
In our view, this is bordering on absurdity. If a person with special
needs equips herself/himself to be able to deal with the daily chores
better, including travel in train, she/he has a disadvantage. But if the
person is accompanied by an escort, then both the person and the escort
would be entitled to the concessional travel. World over, persons with
special needs move around with facilities being created for their benefit.
Such people are to be encouraged to do so to live an independent life.
The society needs to be sensitized to the needs of such person. The
Railways seem to deprive more enterprising amongst such persons, who
are able to equip themselves, of the benefit of the concessional travel,
going against the very objective of the provisions of the said Act.
8. We are unequivocally of the view that the application is misconceived,
contrary to the intent and purpose of the said Act and a mindless
exercise. We dismiss this application with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to the Organisation viz., EKTHA
(Vidyasagar), No.1, Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085 run by
the writ petitioner within fifteen days from today.

[CJ] [M M S J]
16/03/2016
Bbr

27/04/2016
WP No.25124 of 2005
The Hon`ble The CHIEF JUSTICE and
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN
MR. RAJIV RAJAN,
DOOR NO.5, GOLDEN PLAZA, 60 & 61, M.M.
RAMASWAMY STREET, JAFFERKHANPET,
CHENNAI-83.
Vs
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY,S RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110 001.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the inspection
was carried out by the Commissioner of Disabilities and he seeks to
submit a report dated 26.04.2016 of the Deputy Chief Commercial
Manager, Passenger Services, Southern Railways.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to examine the same.
3.Let a complete set of the report be supplied to the learned Advocate
Commissioner appointed earlier.
4.List for compliance on 28.06.2016, when the connected matter being
W.P.No.38224 of 2005 is listed.

[CJ] [M S N J]
27/04/2016
SRA

28/06/2016
WP No.25124 of 2005

The Hon`ble The CHIEF JUSTICE and

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN
MR. RAJIV RAJAN,
DOOR NO.5, GOLDEN PLAZA, 60 & 61, M.M.
RAMASWAMY STREET, JAFFERKHANPET,
CHENNAI-83.
Vs
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY,S RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110 001.

Learned Amicus to inform the concerned departments of the remaining

issues pending and place them before us.
List on 12th August, 2016.

[CJ] [R M D J]
28/06/2016
KSR

12/08/2016
WP No.25124 of 2005
The Hon`ble The CHIEF JUSTICE and
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN
MR. RAJIV RAJAN,
DOOR NO.5, GOLDEN PLAZA, 60 & 61, M.M. RAMASWAMY STREET, JAFFERKHANPET,
CHENNAI-83.
Vs
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY,S RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW
DELHI 110 001.

At request, list on 02.09.2016.

[CJ] [R M D J]
12/08/2016
KSR

02/09/2016
WP No.25124 of 2005
The Hon`ble The CHIEF JUSTICE and
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN
MR. RAJIV RAJAN,
DOOR NO.5, GOLDEN PLAZA, 60 & 61, M.M.
RAMASWAMY STREET, JAFFERKHANPET,
CHENNAI-83.
Vs
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY,S RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110 001.

There are still pending issues, as it is apparent from the petitioner`s

remarks on the compliance report post re-inspection, coupled with
photographs.
2.
We put a query to the learned counsel for the respondent as to
when the full compliances in all terms can take place. He submits on
instruction that except the issue of change of design of coach entrance, all
other aspects would be implemented within two months, failing which the
respondent shall remain personally present in Court. On the expiry of two
months, the petitioner will inspect within a week thereafter and give a
copy of his remarks to the respondent as well as the Disability
Commissioner. The Disability Commissioner will inspect the premises
within a week thereafter.
3.

List for compliance on 04.11.2016.

[CJ] [R M D J]

02/09/2016
Bbr