WRIT PETITION NO. 539 OF 2004

1. Charmaine A. Lobo
Student Of V.M. Salgaocar
College Of Law,
R/O H.No. 3d, Socol
Vaddo Bastora, Bardez,
Goa 403507

2. Sanford F. Facho
Student Of V.M. Salgaocar
College Of Law,
R/O H. No. 1739,
Doris Palace,
Alto Betim, Bardez,
Goa 403521 … ............................................................PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. State Of Goa
Through The Chief Secretary
Secretariat, Alto-Betim
Goa.

2. Union Of India
Through The Ministry Of
Social Justice And Empowerment

3. Corporation Of The City Of Panjim
Through The Chairperson
Panjim – Goa.

4. The Kadamba Transport Corporation
Through The General Manager
Alto-Betim, Goa.

5. Konkan Railways
Through Divisional Railway Manager
Margao Railway Station
Margao – Goa. …............................................................. RESPONDENTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About The Petition

This is a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of Mandamus in the matter of providing barrier-free access for the persons with disabilities to public buildings and facilities under Section 44, 45, and 46 of the Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995.

Section 44

a. Under Section 44 of the PWD Act, the transport sector shall for the benefit of the persons with disabilities, take special measures to;
i) Adapt rail compartments, buses, vessels and aircrafts in such a way as to permit easy access to persons with disabilities;
ii) Adapt toilets in rail compartments, buses, vessels, aircrafts and waiting rooms in such a way as to permit wheel chair users to use them conveniently.

Section 45

i) Installation of auditory signals at road crossing for the benefit of persons who are visually persons with disabilities;
ii) Causing kerb cuts and slopes to be made in the pavement to the easy access of persons having disability of movement;
iii) Engraving on the surface of zebra crossing for the persons suffering from visual disability;
iv) Engraving on the edges of railway platform for the person suffering with visual disability.

Section 46

i. Ramps in public buildings
ii. Adaptation of toilets for persons having disability of movement
iii. Braille symbols and auditory signals in elevators or lifts
iv. Ramps in hospitals, primary health centers and other medical care and rehabilitation institutions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Passed By The High Court

CORAM: R.M. LODHA &
N. A. BRITTO, J.
DATE: 25 th OCTOBER, 2005

P.C.:

In compliance of our Order dated 18th October, 2005, the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Goa is personally present. He handed in his affidavit which is taken on record. It transpires from his affidavit that for the implementation of the recommendations given in the Access Audit of various Government buildings, a meeting was held on 19.10.2005 with the Chief Secretary, all the concerned Secretaries and the Heads of Departments. The Minutes of the meeting held on 19.10.2005 have been placed on record (Exh.A annexed with the affidavit).

2. It further transpires that the meeting of the State Executive Committee under Section 19 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (for short, ' the Act of 1995 ') was convened on 21.10.2005 and the plan of action for implementation of the Access Audit recommendations was scrutinised. Along with his affidavit, the Secretary, Social Welfare
Department has annexed summary plan of action (Exh.C). The summary reflects the acceptance/rejection of the Access Audit's recommendations, the recommendations which have been accepted, the time frame within which the recommendations would be implemented.

3. Having perused the summary plan of action, we find that the time sought for implementation of recommendations which have been accepted by the State Government, by and large, appears to be reasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioners also expressed satisfaction in respect of the time frame set out by the State Government for implementation of the Access Audit recommendations.

4. We accept the time frame set out in the summary plan of action for implementation of the recommendations of the Access Audit.

5. As regards recommendations which have not been accepted by the State Government, the learned counsel for the petitioners may file objections in that regard within three months from today. This aspect is kept open to be considered by the Court after the affidavit is filed by the petitioners.

6. Our attention was invited to Section 18 of the Act of 1995 by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. He submitted that the State Coordination Committee, inter alia whose function is to develop a State policy to address issues faced by persons with disabilities has failed to discharge the said function. The counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the whole object of developing State policy is to solve the problem faced by the persons with disabilities and take steps to ensure barrierfree environment in public places, work places, public utilities, schools and other institutions. The State Coordination Committee is also required to monitor and evaluate programmes and design for achieving equality and full participation of persons with disabilities.

7. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, candidly conceded that the State Coordination Committee has not so far been able to develop the State policy to address issues faced by the persons with disabilities. He would submit that once the State policy is developed and evolved, the State Coordination Committee shall take necessary steps to ensure barrierfree environment in public places, work places, public utilities, schools and other institutions and also monitor and evaluate and evolve designs for achieving equality and full participation of persons with disabilities. The Secretary would submit that for developing the State policy, the State Coordination Committee needs about six months time.

8. The State Government, now, seems to have woken up – as is reflected from the meeting held on 19.10.2005. As prayed by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department (he is also Secretary of the State Coordination Committee), we grant six months time to the State Coordination Committee to develop the State policy to address issues faced by persons with disabilities. We observe that once the State policy is in place, the State Coordination Committee shall take necessary steps to monitor and evaluate the impact of such policy and programme designs for achieving equality and full participation of persons with disabilities.

9. Let the Writ Petition come up for further directions after six months.
Order accordingly.

N. A BRITTO, J. R. M. LODHA, J.

sl.