Disposed

Rahul Bhimrao Pol and Ors. v. the Managing Director and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2012WP/2290/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, persons with disabilities sought a mandamus directing CIDCO to allot 200 sq.ft. of land at a concessional rate based on Government Resolutions of 2001 and 2007. The High Court directed CIDCO to consider representations sympathetically within three months but clarified that allotment of constructed property might differ from raw land area.

What did the court decide?

Directed CIDCO to consider representations for 200 sq.ft. or above 100 sq.ft. space sympathetically within three months.

Rahul Bhimrao Pol and Ors. Vs the Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

wp-2290-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2290 OF 2011

¶7

Rahul Pol & Ors. V/s.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

The Managing Director, City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Ors ....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Rahul Thakur with Ms. Sonia Ekbote for the petitioners. Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Kashyap Bhalerao i/b. A.A. Garge for respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 17 February 2012.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The petitioners, 6 in number, who are persons with disabilities, have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein i.e. City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “CIDCO”) to grant 200 sq.ft. of land to the petitioners on preferential basis as well as on concessional rate as provided by the Government resolutions dated 26 April 2001 and 25 July 2007 Exhibits “A” and “B” to the petition.

¶14

The petitioners have invoked the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The above sections read as

gopi

wp-2290-11

under:-

“ Section 42 . The appropriate Government shall by notification make scheme to provide aids and appliances to persons with disabilities.

¶20

Section 43 . The appropriate Government and local authorities shall by notification frame scheme in favour of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional

¶21

rate --

¶22

a) houses;

¶23

b) setting up business; c) Setting up of special recreation centre; d) establishment of special school; e) establishment of research centres; f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities.

¶24

The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 provides for such a beneficial allotment.

¶25

The State Government has issued Resolutions dated 25 April 2001 and 25 July 2007 for providing physically handicapped persons 200 sq.ft. of land at concessional rate.

¶26

The petitioners application for increasing size of the plot/stall was not accepted and the CIDCO informed the petitioners by letter dated 25 June 2010 (Exhibit G page 40) that without a policy decision, Planning Section cannot take any action in that regard. The petitioners, therefore, made further representation, but by communication dated 12 November 2010 (Exhibit I page 45) the petitioners were informed that the space admeasuring 4.8 sq. meters is

wp-2290-11

gopi

being allotted to persons with disabilities for the purpose of running a PCO, STD, ISD, FAX, E-mail, Typing, Cyclostyling, Xerox, Stationery, Cold drinks, Mineral water, Chocolate, etc., and that there was no move to grant 200 sq.ft., of space to persons with disabilities. The CIDCO also relied on its policy decision dated 1 February 1988 (Exhibit AR-1). As per the said policy the size of the site to be allotted to physically handicapped persons has to be 8 ft. x 6 ft. i.e. 48 sq.ft. at a nominal rent of Rs.100/- for eleven months.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the old policy of 1988 has to be revised in light of the subsequent Government Resolution dated 26 April 2001 and 25 July 2007 at Exhibit “A” and “B” to the petition and that as per the said policy space/land admeasuring 200 sq.ft. is required to be given to persons with disabilities. It is also submitted that instead of 200 sq.ft. of land being given to the persons with disabilities the petitioners are allotted only 48 to 50 sq.ft. of land or space without any permission to put up any pucca structure and that too at the rate of Rs.461/- per sq. meter and, therefore, the petitioners are required to pay rent at much higher rate than the nominal rate of Rs.100/- prescribed under the CIDCO Policy.

¶32

The learned counsel for the CIDCO submits that the CIDCO is an independent local entity and is, therefore, not governed by the Government Resolutions at Exhibits “A” and “B” to the petition.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the original CIDCO policy was formulated in the year 1988 and was subsequently revised from time to time, it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioners make a representation to CIDCO

wp-2290-11

gopi

and also to the State Government in the Urban Development Department for granting the persons with disabilities larger space. The petitioners' contention is that the persons with disabilities often have to move around in wheel chairs and that the area of 48 to 50 sq.ft., is too small an area for even physical movement of the persons with disabilities. It is, further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that CIDCO is a Government company under the Companies Act and that as per the definition of “Establishment” under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the Government companies are also covered by the provisions of the said Act.

¶38

In view of the above, it is directed that if the petitioners make a representation to the CIDCO to provide to the persons with disabilities space/constructed property admeasuring carpet area of 200 sq.ft. or atleast 100 sq.ft., CIDCO shall consider such representation sympathetically and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶39

It is also made clear that the CIDCO may not necessarily allot land admeasuring 200 sq.ft., or 100 sq.ft. and if any premises on ground floor admeasuring 200/100 sq.ft. of constructed building is allotted to persons with disabilities, CIDCO will be in a position to utilise/allot constructed property on the upper storeys to other persons.

¶40

With the above observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶41

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Rahul Bhimrao Pol and Ors. v. the Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Bhimrao Pol and Ors. v. the Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Munjal Vs M/S. Global Trade Finance Limited and Anr.

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya Valvi and Ors.

Park Synthetics and Aniel Mehra Vs New India Assurance Company

Bajirao Sakharam Kurade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Ebrahim Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.