Persons with benchmark disabilities are entitled to priority in government housing schemes under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; however, once the funds are disbursed to the beneficiary, the petition seeking such funds becomes infructuous.

ORDER

Heard Mrs. R. S. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD, Assam.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner falls under the definition of a “person with benchmark disability”, under sub-section (r) of Section 2 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a person with disability benchmark with 90% visual impairment, having no source of income or financial support. In the year 2018, the petitioner applied for allotment of a government house under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) scheme. The name of the petitioner was reflected in the list of persons in the Awaas Plus Registration Report PMAY-G (Additional) Lehugaon Gaon Panchayat. However, till date, the petitioner has not received the necessary funds for construction of the house from the office of the P & RD, Assam. It is contended that under the provisions of Section 37(a) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner is entitled to a priority of 5% reservation in the government scheme for housing and all special schemes. Clause 3.4.5 of the Framework for implementation of the said PMAY-G scheme specifically provides that special priority will be given to the households who have persons with disabilities in them. It is contended that in spite of those priority schemes, the petitioner was not provided the fund under the aforesaid scheme. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.

3. During the proceeding before this Court, a stand has been taken by the respondent P & RD, Assam that the earmarked money that is available under the aforesaid scheme has already been provided to the petitioner.

4. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner was provided time to confirm the receipt of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner as claimed by the respondent P & RD, Assam.

5. When the matter was taken up today, Mrs. Chowdhury, learned counsel has fairly submitted that though she has been given sufficient time, she is unable to locate and/or contact the petitioner for confirmation as to whether the amount has been received or not.

6. Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel has submitted certain documents to show that the amount has already been deposited in the account of the petitioner.

7. The aforesaid documents (Xerox copies) are kept on record marking ‘X’.

8. The aforesaid documents submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, reveals that an amount of Rs. 32,500/- was deposited on 26.06.2024 to the beneficiary, namely, Krishna Kanta Bhuyan, i.e., the petitioner. Subsequently, two other installments of amount of Rs. 48,750/- have been paid to the petitioner on 21.10.2024 and 12.12.2025 respectively.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Standing Counsel for the P & RD, Assam, submits that since the grievance of the petitioner has already been met, nothing survives in this case and the instant matter can be disposed of.

10. Mrs. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not have any objection in such disposal as the documents reveal payment of the money to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, in view of the above, the instant writ petition stands closed and disposed of as infructuous.