The Bombay High Court recently slammed the authorities of the Maharashtra government for refusing to grant an alternate site to a 52-year-old man, who is partially disabled, for operating a telephone booth near the Pune bus stand. The HC accordingly ordered the MSRTC and other authorities to identify an alternate site at the earliest so that the man can resume his booth.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar was hearing the plea filed by Vijay Gaikwad, who is 48 per cent disabled and is entitled to protection under the provisions of The Persons with Disability Act, 2016.
In 1992, the MSRTC had issued an advertisement for allotting a telephone booth center to people with disabilities. Vijay applied for the same and after proper procedure, he was granted a site near Shivani Nagar bus stand area in Pune, in January 1993, after he made the necessary security deposit and advance license fees as well.
Since 1993, he ran this STD/ISD PCO booth at the Shivaji Nagar bus depot in Pune without any problems. However, in February, he was served a notice by the MSRTC directing that alternate arrangements be made within 90 days, because the site in question was temporarily required for the Pune Metro Rail Project for construction of a underground metro station.
Vijay was asked to deliver possession of the PCO booth. The requirement was that he would be shifted elsewhere, and when the present site at Shivaji Nagar was returned to MSRTC, he would be permitted to resume operations of the phone booth facility there.
However, he wasn't allotted a temporary alternate site. He then filed a plea before the Commissioner of Disabilities, who passed a detailed order in March 2020 asking authorities concerned to make proper arrangements at alternate site. However, the Dairy Development Department of the state filed an affidavit stating that it would not permit Vijay to start a telephone booth at the alternate site.
The bench noted that this is only temporary or transitory arrangement.
"But the project itself may take some time. He cannot be expected to be rendered without an income for that duration," the bench said.
The judges noted that the site in question, identified by the MSRTC wasn't approved by the Dairy Development Department on the ground that the proposal wasn't in proper format.
"If this is only a matter of form, then it is entirely irrelevant. One must look at the substance, not mere form," the judges said, adding, "Factually, there is no doubt that MSRTC has in fact made the proposal. The Dairy Development Department may not like the form of that proposal but that is surely immaterial. That is also no ground to deny relief to Vijay."
"Viewed, therefore, from the lens of either Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India and especially in the context of Vijay having a 48 per cent disability, and even more emphatically because he has an order in his favour from an authority under the Persons with Disability Act, we do not see how the Maharashtra government can refuse his demand or refuse to comply with the Disability Commissioner’s order," the bench held.
