STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a landmark judgment towards specially-abled persons Justice B.S Walia of Jammu Kashmir High Court (Jammu Wing) has quashed Government Order No. 216-Estt of 2013 dated 21st October, 2013 whereby Director Estates J and K Government had rejected the claim of Advocate Suraj Singh (Visually Impaired Lawyer) for Government Accommodation on the ground that 5 per cent discretionary quota for allotment of residential accommodation under J and K Estates Department (Allotment of Government Accommodation) Regulations, 2004 does not include persons with disabilities.
After hearing Advocate S.C Gupta with Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner Advocate Suraj Singh whereas Sr. AAG S.S. Nanda appearing for the Estates Department, Justice B.S Walia while quashing the Government Order No. 216-Estt of 2013 also directed that the claim of the petitioner for residential accommodation be placed before the Minister Estates for taking a decision in accordance with the rules and regulations in the light of the interpretation given in this judgment within a period of four weeks.
Advocate S.C Gupta with Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned government order is legally unsustainable for not taking into account the fact that the 5 per cent discretionary quota for allotment of residential accommodation by the Minister Estates under the J and K Estates Department (Allotment of Government Accommodation) Regulations, 2004 is not restricted to Freedom Fighters, Ex-Legislators and Media Persons only, but envisages other persons also as evident from Clause (e) of paragraph 3 of the impugned order which clarifies that the 5 per cent discretionary quota includes freedom fighters, ex-legislators and media persons also, meaning thereby that the said categories of persons are in addition to other categories of deserving persons and on the basis of the same Advocate SC Gupta contended that the aforementioned clause has to be read as not excluding other deserving persons.
In support of his arguments Advocate SC Gupta referred to the preamble of J&K Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998, which provides for equal opportunities, care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training and rehabilitation to the persons with disabilities.
Justice B.S Walia in his authoritative pronouncement observed that it is settled law that the word “includes” used in the interpretation clauses is to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statue and when so used, those words and phrases are to be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. Justice Walia in support of this interpretation relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 3 SCC 550.
Justice B.S. Walia observed it was incumbent on the State Government to ensure the implementation of the mandate of the Disability Act by providing equal opportunity with regard to protection, maintenance, welfare and rehabilitation to persons who suffer from a disability.
Court observed that as per Clause 3 (e) of the Regulations as contained in the impugned order, the 5 per cent discretionary quota is to be operated as per the discretion of the Minister Estates. In other words the competent authority for taking decision with regard to the claim under the discretionary quota is the Minister Estates. However, the impugned order has been passed by the Director Estates. In the circumstances, the impugned order is coram-non-judice.
