https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168347 The Supreme Court noted that the relevant coordination committees under the Persons with Disabilities Act had already been constituted substantially, so no further mandatory directions were required, but it stressed that the statutory bodies must actively implement the Act. On air-travel concession, it held that persons with 80% or more locomotor disability formed a distinct class entitled to the same concession as blind persons, because the legislation required meaningful access and the disability created comparable travel hardship. The benefit was confined to those medically certified by the prescribed authority. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168347 The Supreme Court noted that the relevant coordination committees under the Persons with Disabilities Act had already been constituted substantially, so no further mandatory directions were required, but it stressed that the statutory bodies must actively implement the Act. On air-travel concession, it held that persons with 80% or more locomotor disability formed a distinct class entitled to the same concession as blind persons, because the legislation required meaningful access and the disability created comparable travel hardship. The benefit was confined to those medically certified by the prescribed authority. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168347