Shri Niaz Ahmad vs Union Of India & Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 987 Del

ORDER

Mukul Mudga, J.

1. RULE.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition is a physically challenged and suffers from blindness and had sought an allotment of a telephone booth from the respondent No.4-in charge/Controller at Anand Vihar, I.S.B.T. and a telephone connection from respondents 5 & 6 at the said place.

3. The respondents 5-6 are not disinclined to grant telephone connection sought but have pleaded that the telephone connection could only be granted as and when the petitioner has space for a telephone booth. He further submits that at present the petitioner does not have any space for which a telephone connection could be granted to him. The counsel for respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the petitioner may be entitled to apply for the 25% quota reserved for physically handicapped. She further submitted that as yet they have not issued any advertisement or called for applications for allotment. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner is certainly entitled to be considered for the allotment of space if he fulfills the eligibility criteria. She further states that as and when an advertisement is floated, petitioner may apply for the allotment and his case will be considered Along with other candidates for allotment of space.

4. Since the petitioner suffers from blindness, I direct that the respondents will communities is person to the petitioner as and when allotment is likely to be made to the physically challenged persons so that the petitioner has adequate time to apply for the said allotment.

5. In view of the stand taken by respondent No.4 and respondent Nos. 5 & 6, the writ petition does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.