Conditions in Government Hostels to meet decent Standards of Living

C.V.L. Narasimha Rao vs. Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department and Ors

Filed under: Sections 61, 62, 66 to 68 of the Persons with Disabilities Act
Section 2 of Protection of Human Rights Act
Articles 21, 38, 39, 41& 43 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: C.V.L. Narasimha Rao
Respondent: Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Dept. and Ors
Citation: 2001 (6) ALT 1
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judges: Satya Brata Sinha &V.V.S.Rao

This is Public Interest Litigation based on the paper clipping which reported on the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hostel of blind.

Facts

A local newspaper in Andhra Pradesh reported that due to the negligence of authorities, one student of the Government hostel for the Blind at Dilsukhnagar, fell from the building and died. It disclosed that the authorities had not taken the request of the students to grill the open area where the student had fallen. It was also stated and that no steps had been taken even after the accident.

The hostel had 32 rooms meant for 75 students but the hostel had been housing 125 students and that the subsistence allowance of Rs.20/- was very low. Further, bed sheets, plates, glasses etc had not been provided to the students in four years. The food served to them was of poor quality food and the kitchen smelt bad. Although the Government had sanctioned Rs.4 lakh for medicines, students had to buy their own medicines from outside.

When notice was issued by the Court based on the paper report, the District Collector who was in charge of the hostel denied all allegations.

One advocate P. Balakrishna Murthy was requested to visit the hostel and submit a status report. In his report, he referred to a phone call and a visit of the Asst. Director of the Office of the Commissioner and the Deputy Director, to the blind hostel. When Murthy visited the hostel and checked the attendance register, he found that some of the employees had been absent.

In his report, Murthy mentioned that each room accommodated 8 persons while there were only two iron cots without mattresses. They had been sleeping on empty gunny bags. Though the total capacity of the hostel was 100, 130 persons were housed in it. Further, with regard to the death of the hosteller, the advocate was convinced that the death of the student had been caused accidentally while playing kabadi as stated by the hostel warden.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to all the relevant provisions of the Act. It was then noted that the said hostel was being run pursuant to the scheme adopted by the State so as to equip the blind students with education and working skills for a better life. Further, the Court expressed shock and stated that it could not be understood as to why the blind students were allowed to play kabadi on the terrace. Based on the report of the advocate, it was noted that the living conditions of the students in the hostel was not good and the hostel was not managed well.

In the above circumstances, the Court passed an interim order directing the State to grant a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to the mother of the deceased boy in addition to Rs.10,000/- that had been paid earlier. The State was also directed to pay Rs.13, 000/- and Rs.6, 500/- towards bed and clothing and cosmetic consumables for the students of the hostel. The District Collector was directed to supervise the purchase upon ascertaining the requirements.

The Commissioner for Disabilities was directed to make a surprise inspection of the hostel and submit a report to the Court within fours weeks. The advocate was also requested to make a surprise visit on a day convenient to him and submit the report to the Court.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 61, 62, 66 to 68 of the Persons with Disabilities Act
  • Section 2 of Protection of Human Rights Act
  • Articles 21, 38, 39, 41 & 43 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295
  • Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Minicipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180
  • Consumer Education & Research Centre vs. Union of  India (1995) 3 SCC 42
  • Sita Ram vs. Delhi  Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675
  • Unni Krisnan vs. State of A.P (1993) 1 SCC 645
  • Javed Abidi vs. Union of India (1999) 1 SCC 467
  • Indian Council of legal Aid & Advice vs. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 467
  • Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P (1996) 2 SCC 549
  • Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., vs. Union of India (1996) 10 SCC 104
  • Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
  • N.H.R.C vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 SCC 742
  • C. Masilamani Mudaliar vs. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996) 8 SCC 525
  • Madhu Kishwar vs. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 125
  • Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613