W.P.(C)/2006/2016 of SUNIL JAIN Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2006/2016 SUNIL JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr.Ashraf Yusuf Khan, Advocate.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through Mr.Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Advocate for R- 1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN O R R% 09.03.2016

Present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file status report regarding petitioner’s representation. Petitioner further seeks direction to respondent no. 1 to 3 to take action against the respondent no. 4/School. Petitioner also seeks compensation of Rs. 10 lacs from respondent No.4 on account of mental torture, humiliation and agony caused to the special child.

It has been averred that petitioner’s son is special child studying in respondent no. 4/School since 2[nd] September, 2013. It is stated that petitioner’s son on 31[st] October, 2014 met with an accident in the respondent No.4 school campus and suffered fracture in his hand, but no first aid assistance was provided to him.

Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner spent more than Rs.1 lac on the treatment and his son took more than one year to recover due to which he could not attend the school. He further states

that the petitioner filed complaint dated 1[st] December, 2015 before the respondent No.3-National Commission for Protection of Child Rights against respondent No.4 regarding harassment and torture. He states that respondent No.3 vide letter dated 13[th] January, 2016 directed the respondent No.2 to file an action taken report with the Commission on or before 12[th] February, 2016, but no steps have been taken till date.

Since the petitioner’s complaint dated 1[st] December, 2015 has

not been disposed of till date, this Court directs the respondent No.2/Director (SW) to dispose of the petitioner’s said complaint within period of six weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4/School. copy of the order shall be communicated to the petitioner by way of registered AD post.

In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2, he shall be at liberty to file an appropriate proceeding in accordance with the law.

It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

With the aforesaid observations and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Order dasti.

MARCH 09, 2016

MANMOHAN, J