ORDER :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. Heard Ms. R.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Mr. R. Saloi, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, more particularly, the State respondents to ensure that petitioner can avail the right of access and equal participation guaranteed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and further seeks imposition of exemplary cost upon respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for violating petitioner's right to access and equal opportunity under the aforesaid Act.

3. From the pleadings it is seen that petitioner is a person with cerebral palsy. Notwithstanding such disability, petitioner has overcome physical and mental barriers in his personal capacity and by virtue of his commitment and participation, he has become a leading disability rights activist of the country. At the time of filing of the writ petition, he was the Executive Director of Shishu Sarothi, a centre established at Guwahati for rehabilitation and training for multiple disability. He is also associated with various organizations connected with welfare of children and differently abled persons. In the course of the hearing, Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that petitioner is now the Executive Director of National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP).

4. According to the petitioner, because of cerebral palsy, his lower limbs have reduced mobility which has led to increase in his body weight. As per medical advice to reduce weight and to enhance stamina, he visited the Gold's Gym, Ganeshguri, GS Road, Guwahati (respondent No. 6) to avail the facilities therein for weight loss as well as for enhancement of stamina of upper limbs. When the petitioner went to the office of respondent No. 6 he found the approach of the staff unfriendly. Petitioner was advised to e-mail a brief sketch of his medical condition to be examined by officials of respondent No. 5 of which respondent No. 6 is the franchisee. Petitioner e-mailed the same further mentioning that he had availed the facilities of Gold's Gym at Bengaluru earlier.

5. On receipt of his e-mail, petitioner was asked to re-visit the gym premises and on such re-visit he was subjected to certain unrelated questions on the pretext of having a better understanding of his physique and disability. Initially, petitioner was allowed to go through a workout whereafter he was asked to visit the gym again on a subsequent date. When the petitioner again visited the gym, he was subjected to a gruelling session of about 30 minutes work out without any break. On completion of the session, petitioner was told that he would be informed about the program that would be specially designed for him in due course. After a long gap, petitioner received a call from the office of respondent No. 6 and was informed that he would be able to avail the gym facilities for a month but some additional amount would be charged as a personal trainer would have to be exclusively provided to him. Aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment meted out to him, petitioner had submitted representation dated 10.06.2011 to respondent No. 6. In his reply dated 14.07.2011 respondent No. 6 denied any such conduct on its part.

6. It is in such circumstances that the present writ petition came to be filed.

7. Notice in this case was issued on 14.12.2011.

8. One Smt. Leena Das, Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department has filed an affidavit on 31.1.2013 on behalf of State of Assam, Social Welfare Department. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that it is respondent Nos. 5 and 6 which are the competent authorities to disclose as to why petitioner was not allowed to have equal access to the gym and as to why respond