Dismissed

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014PIL/44/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a Government Notification dated 16 July 2013 removed the ground for the PIL regarding 3% reservation. It directed MHADA to allot un-allotted tenements from 2011-2012 to persons with disabilities under the 1995 Act and considered representations on a single-window clearance mechanism by 31 December 2014.

What did the court decide?

Directing MHADA to allot un-allotted tenements from 2011-2012 to persons with disabilities and ensuring a single-window clearance mechanism is considered within four weeks.

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

dssherla

905-pil-44-09

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.44 OF 2009

¶7

India Centre for Human Rights and Law & ors. .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents. WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.216 OF 2011

¶8

¶9

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.44 OF 2009

¶10

India Centre for Human Rights and Law & ors. .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents. And Bapu Trust for Research on Mind & Discourse .. Applicants.

¶11

Ms D. Mukherjee i/b Kranti L.C. for Petitioners. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶12

Ms Aparna Murlidharan i/b P.G. Lad for Respondent No.2-MHADA. Ms S.V. Barucha with N.R. Prajapati for Respondent No.3-Union of India.

¶13

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 8 JULY 2014

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1] In the order dated 24 June 2014, the appearance of Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP shall be shown only for respondent No.1 and not for respondent No.2. Accordingly, the correction shall be

1 of 4

dssherla 2

905-pil-44-09

carried out in the original order.

¶20

2] The learned AGP for respondent No.1-State tenders an affidavit dated 7 July 2014 of Mrs. Rohini R. Puralkar, Under Secretary to Government in the Housing Department alongwith the Notification dated 16 July 2013 amending the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1981 (said Rules). Rule 13 of the said Rules provides for 3% reservation in the following terms:

¶21

“(4) Person having disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)”

¶22

3] In view of the above, learned AGP submits that this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) would not survive.

¶23

4] This PIL filed in February 2009, the Petitioners had contended that the State Government has bound to provide for 3% reservation for persons with disabilities as defined by the above Act as against only 2% reservation in the said Rules.

¶24

5] In view of the above Notification dated 16 July 2013, the grievance raised by the petitioners in the PIL would not survive. However, we must note that during the pendency of this petition, we had passed interim orders on 6 May 2011 and 10 May 2012 restraining MHADA from allotting 1% of tenements, i.e., the

2 of 4

dssherla

905-pil-44-09

differential percentage between 2% to 3 % for the years 2011 and 2012 respectively. In view of the fact that 1995 Act was in force during the year 2011-2012, the MHADA was required to provide 3 % reservation for persons with disabilities as defined by the 1995 Act, instead of 2 % as provided by it for the said years. Accordingly, we direct that the tenements left un-allotted, on account of the interim orders made by us on 6 May 2011 and 10 May 2012, shall now be made available for persons with disabilities as defined under 1995 Act. The MHADA is, accordingly, directed to take necessary steps for allotment of such un-allotted tenements for the aforesaid years as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 30 November 2014. The Notification dated 16 July 2013 shall be applied in respect of such un-allotted tenements reserved under the interim orders for the years 2011 and 2012 respectively.

¶30

6] The petition also contains the prayer for rehabilitation of 31 flood affected families of disabled persons named and listed in Exhibit-C. It will be open for the petitioners to pursue their representations to the State Government and MHADA. This Court may not be treated to have expressed any opinion in this regard.

¶31

7] The petitioners also seek a direction to the State Government and MHADA to provide for single window clearance mechanism for persons with disabilities, so as enable them to effectively avail the benefits of the policy laid down in Government Resolutions dated 3 June 2002, 28 December 2006,

3 of 4

dssherla 4

905-pil-44-09

25 July 2007, 6 August 2008 and 26 April 2011 which concern the allotment of land to blind and disabled persons without auction for residential, commercial and industrial use. Again, the petitioners are at liberty to make representations to the State Government and MHADA within a period of four weeks from today. The State Government and MHADA shall thereupon consider such representations as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31 December 2014.

¶36

8] The Public Interest Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶37

9] In view of disposal of the PIL, Chamber Summons No. 216 of 2011 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

10] Parties to act upon an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of the Court.

¶39

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶41

4 of 4

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 2 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

Shri. Shrikant Bhimaji Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shailesh Pranlal Bhuta Vs the Commissioner of Co-Opearation and Registrar and Anr.

Shri. Shrikant Bhimaji Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India, Ministry of India Railway, through Chairman and Ors.

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Ibrahim Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan Vs Executive Engineer, and Ors.

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Unique Integrated Transport and Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Satvik Rajiv Samani and Another Vs Smt. Shardaben Prabhudas Samani and Another

Rajeetram B. Upadhyay Vs M/S. R. K. Films and Studions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jaipal Namdeo Mallapur and Anr. Vs M/S Ranjani Sunderrao Mallapur and Anr.

Kataria Industries Private Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr.

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.