Dismissed

Kannadas v. the Chief Director

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WP/34756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A disabled petitioner sought quashing of an order refusing permission to run a bunk tea shop in Sirucheri SIPCOT, relying on Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, noting the land belonged to SIPCOT and the risk of bunk shops obstructing public movement, while permitting a representation elsewhere.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kannadas Vs the Chief Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

Kannadas

... Petitioner

The Chief Director Sipcot Head Office 19-Rukumani Lakshmipathy road, Egmore, Chennai

¶11

The District Collector District Collector Office, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Vandalur Tahsildar Office Chengalpattu District.

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Thiruporur BDO Officer, Thiruporur, Chengalpattu.

¶14

The Panchayat President Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam, Chennai. .... Respondents

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

¶18

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned order of 1^st respondent made in PO/SIP/BUNK SHOP/2023 dated 09.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit and run the Bunk Tea Shop in Sirucheri SIPCOT Company.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.Abishek Murthy for R1 Mr.V.Nanmaran Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 & R3 Mr.P.Gurunathan Addl.Govt. Pleader for R4 & R5

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent made in PO/SIP/BUNK SHOP/2023 dated 09.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit and run the Bunk Tea Shop in Sirucheri SIPCOT Company.

¶23

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been

¶24

stated that the petitioner is a disabled person with permanent disability in 2/7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

¶27

his leg. He had stated that he had given a representation seeking to put up Bunk Tea Shop in Sirucheri SIPCOT Company. He had then filed W.P.No.20814 of 2023. By order dated 14.07.2023 a learned single Judge of this Court had directed examination of the representation. The impugned order came to be passed on 09.02.2024. In the impugned order it had been stated as follows:-

¶28

It is informed that Hon'ble High Court vide order 2^nd cited have directed the Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT, Siruseri to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass final orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of representation forwarded by the petitioner with regard to setting up of a bunk shop at SIPCIT, Siruseri.

¶29

The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a petition filed by Thiru.S.Balaraman in their order dated 26.08.2015 had observed that “there are number of cases filed in the name of physically handicapped seeking for a direction not to evict their alleged bunk shops put up on roads. It is not understandable how this kind of bunks have been mushroomed all of a sudden. This Court also some times passes interim order considering the submissions made. Taking advantages of the position, many persons, after

¶30

3/7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

¶33

obtaining orders, are putting up bunk shops affecting the movement of vehicles, pedestrians and public” and dismissed the petition”.

¶34

After observing as above, the first respondent had expressed

¶35

inability to consider the request of the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed challenging that order.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section

¶37

43 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection or Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and claimed that the petitioner has a statutory right to do business. Section 43 of the Act reads as follows:-

¶38

“ The appropriate Government and local authorities shall by

¶39

notification frame schemes in favour of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates for:

¶40

a. House

¶41

b. Setting up business

¶42

c. Setting up of recreation centers

¶43

d. Establishment of special schools

¶44

e. Establishment of research centers

¶45

f. Establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities.”

¶46

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

¶47

petitioner must be provided with permission to run a Bunk Tea Shop.

¶48

4/7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

¶51

However, as pointed out the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19743 of 2015 there is a possibility of taking advantage of the provisions by many after obtaining orders of putting up the Bunk Shops affecting the movement of vehicles, pedestrians and public.

¶52

The learned counsel for the first respondent stated that the

¶53

particular area where the petitioner wants to put up a Bunk Shop belongs to the SIPCOT and therefore the Corporation or other authority do not have any control over the same.

¶54

I am not able to accede to the submission made by the learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from giving necessary representation to put up a Bunk Tea Shop in any other area falling within the Panchayat area or Municipal area. No costs.

¶56

10.12.2024

¶57

dpq Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order

¶58

¶59

5/7

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.No.34756 of 2024

¶62