Bombay HC threatens contempt proceedings if State didn't provide information about implementation of 5% reservation in land allotmment to persons with disabilities at concessional rates under RPWD Act.

Court: Bombay High Court 

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Gautam Patel and Hon'ble Justice Neela Gokhale

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 583 of 2020

Case Title: Rajendra Petrus Lalzare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Date of Order: 31 July 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 21 Aug 2023

Case Brief:

The Bombay High Court has issued a stern warning to the Maharashtra government for its failure to provide a meaningful response to the court's query regarding the implementation of a 5 per cent reservation in land allotment at concessional rates for disabled persons under the Disabilities Act. The court has threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against government officials if a proper reply is not filed.

The bench expressed, "This is the most shameful state of affairs. We are not even on the merits of the Petition, but only on the failure of the Government to furnish a meaningful response."

The case was brought before the bench by petitioner seeking the enforcement of Section 37 (c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. This provision mandates that the government should create schemes favoring disabled individuals and allocate 5 per cent reservation in the allotment of land at concessional rates for various purposes, including housing, shelter, occupation, business, and recreation centers.

The petition was filed in 2020, and since then, it has been listed for periodic hearings. However, on every occasion, the government has sought adjournments to submit its affidavit, resulting in delays. In June 2022, an additional government pleader orally informed the court about the government's contemplation of issuing general directions to reserve 5 per cent of land for persons with disabilities. Despite this assurance, the government has not taken the necessary action.

The bench pointed out that the government's response, citing the Maharashtra Land Disposal Rules, did not address the court's specific query. The court emphasised the government's obligation to file a proper affidavit outlining the steps taken under Section 37 (c) of the Disabilities Act.

The bench said, "Now we are making it clear that while we are accommodating the learned AGP on personal grounds, we will not grant further time on the next date under any circumstances. If the Affidavit that is said to be filed in purported or ostensible compliance with orders of this Court does not answer the question of steps taken under Section 37(c) of the Disabilities Act, we are putting all concerned in the Government to notice that we will have no choice but to proceed against those officers, if necessary, in suo moto contempt for disobedience of orders of this Court. If the matter is being stood over by two weeks to accommodate the learned AGP, that time should be better utilised to make amends and to clarify the stand of the Government in accordance with the orders of this Court."

The court has granted the state government a final opportunity to file a meaningful response and set the next hearing for August 21, 2023. If the government fails to comply with this directive, the court warned that it may take suo motu contempt action against the responsible officers for disobeying its orders.

Read the Court Order below:

LPG dealership not a poverty alleviation scheme so as to come under Section 37 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, opines Bangalore HC

Poverty alleviation is for consumers- says Karnataka High Court, rejecting plea that questioned oil companies reserving only 3 per cent of LPG dealerships for people with physical challenges.

The High Court has refused a plea by an organisation working for the welfare of physically challenged persons to reserve five per cent of LPG dealerships to such people. The HC said that it cannot apply Section 37 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as the LPG dealership given by State-owned oil companies are not government welfare schemes where this rule needs to be applied.

Karnataka Rajya Vikalchetanara Rakshana Samiti approached the HC against Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, Hindustan Petroleum and the Union Government challenging a notification by these companies that wanted to select 238 LPG distributors.

As per the RPD Act, the reservation for physically challenged persons is five per cent. But the notification had reserved only 6 distributorships for the physically challenged instead of 11, it was argued. This was less than 3 per cent.

The HC however said that the distributorship is not a welfare measure. It said, “In the overall comprehension of the matter, we are satisfied that even if the award of LPG distributorships, essentially a matter of commercial contract, is a welfare measure and leads to manifold empowerment and all-round development of society, it cannot be termed as a notified scheme for poverty alleviation and development.”

The court also said that poverty alleviation in LPG is directed at consumers and not distributors. So, reservation for distributors under the Act was not possible. It said, “Needless to reiterate that the availability of LPG to the persons below poverty line may be correlated with the poverty alleviation, but that relates to the consumers and not to the distributors.”

The division bench of Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav refused to consider the distributorship licencing as a poverty alleviation scheme. It said, “The award of LPG distributorships is taken up essentially by the three State-owned oil companies and is not any notified scheme of the appropriate Government or local authorities, which could be classified as a poverty alleviation and development scheme.”

Noting that three per cent of the distribution agencies are already reserved for physically challenged persons, the HC said, “The provision for reservation by the respondent Oil Companies, who are the agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, prima facie indicates their attention to the requirements of the persons belonging to different classes and categories. However, for that matter, we find no reason to issue a mandamus to provide for extra reservation for persons with disabilities by operating Section 37” of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

However, the HC said that claims of other concessions in application fee and financial assistance can be sought by making appropriate representation to the concerned authorities.