M/S. Wares and Wants Trading Pvt. Ltd., v. Mr. Arman Ali and 5 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010083982019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/116/2019o M/S.oWARESoANDoWANTSoTRADINGoPVT.oLTD.,o THEoGOLDSoGYM,oMONALoTOWER,o5THoFLOOR,oGANESHGURI,oG.S.oROAD, GUWAHATI-o781005,oASSAM,oREP.oBYoSANJIVoKUMARoJAIN,oAGE-o46o YEARS,oS/O-oSUNDARLALoJAIN,oR/O-o4oCHANAKYAoPATH,oG.S.oROAD,oP.O.o ANDoP.S.oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o781005,oASSAM. VERSUSo MR.oARMANoALIoANDo5oORS.o S/O-oLATEoSHAHIDoALI,o R/O-oH/NO.o4,oAROHANoPATH,oNEWoSARANIA,oGANDHIoBASTI,oGUWAHATI-o 781003,oCURRENTLYoSERVINGoASoTHEoEXECUTIVEoDIRECTOR,oSHISHUo SAROTHI,oAoCENTERoFORoREHABILITATIONoANDoTRAININGoFORo MULTIPLEoDISABILITY,oBIRUBARI,oGUWAHATI-o781016,oASSAM. 2:THEoUNIONoOFoINDIA oREP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARY oDEPARTMENToOFoSOCIALoJUSTICEoANDoEMPOWERMENT oGOVT.oOFoINDIA oSHASTRIoBHAWAN oNEWoDELHI. 3:THEoCHIEFoCOMMISSIONERoFORoPERSONSoWITHoDISABILITIES oMINISTRYoOFoSOCIALoJUSTICEoANDoEMPOWERMENT oSAROJINIoHOUSE oBHAGAWANoDASoROAD oNEWoDELHI-o110001. 4:THEoSTATEoOFoASSAM oREP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oSOCIALoWELFAREoDEPARTMENT oDISPURoGUWAHATI-o781006. Page No.# 2/4 5:COMMISSIONER FOR PERSON WITH DISABILITIES LATAKATA BASISTHA GUWAHATI ASSAM-781029. 6:THE GOLDS GYM CORPORATE OFFICE GARDEN VIEW J. MEHTA MARG NEPEANSEA ROAD MUMBAI-400006 For the appellant : Mr. B.D. Konwar, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. J. Singh, Advocate

For respondent No.1 : Ms. R.S. Choudhury, Advocate For respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 : Mr. D. Nath, Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam

– B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM 15-02-2024 (V. Bishnoi, C.J.) This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 11.03.2019 essentially of imposing cost/fine on the appellant by the learned Single Judge.

¶2The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has submitted that the appellant has no reservation in paying the cost as directed by the learned Single Judge, but is essentially aggrieved by indictment of it by the learned Single Judge. Page No.# 3/4 It is argued that no finding was recorded in the impugned judgment as to the veracity of the allegations raised by the writ petitioner against the appellant and regarding in what manner the appellant failed in its duty to ensure that its facilities are friendly to the differently abled persons.

¶3Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the incident, of which the writ petitioner has complained, is pertaining to the year 2011 when The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was in force and as such, as per the provisions of the said Act, no responsibility was fastened upon the appellant, who is operating a gym in the name of Gold's Gym in Guwahati, for carrying out the provisions of the said Act. Referring to the definition of establishment as provided in Section 2(K) of the Act of 1995, it is submitted that a private entity was not covered under the definition of establishment and therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is duty bound to ensure that its facilities are friendly to the differently abled persons, are erroneous.

¶4It is again reiterated by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is involved in various philanthropic activities and has no problem in depositing the cost of Rs.50,000/- with the Shishu Sarothi, a centre established at Guwahati for rehabilitation and training for multiple disability. However, the observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding the appellant in the impugned judgment are unwarranted.

¶5The counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and argued that it was the duty of the appellant to provide facilities to the differently abled persons as per the convention of the United Nations General Assembly, which was ratified by India. Page No.# 4/4

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was concerned about the lack of facilities available to the differently abled persons in the government establishments as well as private establishments. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are more or less with the intention to create awareness about the rights and facilities available to the differently abled persons.

¶7As such no finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge against the appellant but even if the appellant feels that it has been blamed for no fault of it, then we deem it appropriate to observe that any adverse findings recorded by the learned Single Judge against the appellant be treated as deleted. However, as the counsel for the respondents has agreed, we direct the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Shishu Sarothi, for its use and utilisation, within a period of two weeks from today. With these observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant