Delhi High Court
Jaikishan Aggarwal (Blind) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 July, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2018
+ W.P.(C) 8299/2009 and CM No. 5116/2009
JAIKISHAN AGGARWAL (BLIND) ...Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate with
Mr Gagan Mathur, Mr Varun Mathur and
Ms Renu Rani.
For the Respondents : Ms Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr Vibhu
Tripathi for R-1/UOI.
Mr Rajiv Kapur and Ms Srishti Nigam
for R-2 & 3.
Mr H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with
Mr Mukesh Gupta for MCD.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 129/2011 and CM No. 251/2011
JAIKISHAN AGGARWAL (BLIND) ...Petitioner
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD.
& ORS. ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate with
Mr Gagan Mathur, Mr Varun Mathur and
Ms Renu Rani.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajiv Kapur and Ms Srishti Nigam
for R-1 & 2.
W.P.(C) 8299/2009 & W.P.(C) 129/2011 Page 1 of 20
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
Introduction
1. The petitioner has filed these petitions, essentially, to seek
allotment of a Petroleum Retail Outlet of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (hereafter ‗HPCL'). In W.P.(C) 8299/2009, the
petitioner, inter alia, prays for implementation of the judgment dated
10.12.2008 passed by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities (hereafter ‗Chief Commissioner'), whereby the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (hereafter ‗MCD') was directed to allot suitable
land for operating a retail petroleum outlet, in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner further prays that HPCL be directed to issue a fresh
Letter of Intent (LOI) for allotment of a retail outlet to the petitioner
without any condition for providing land for the said outlet. In W.P(C)
129/2011, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 10.10.2007 issued
by HPCL cancelling the LOI dated 05.04.2006 for failure on the part
of the petitioner to provide a suitable land.
2. The controversies involved in the present petitions are
connected, inasmuch as the petitioner's relief for seeking allotment of
land is in aid of the petitioner securing and allotment of retail outlet by
HPCL. Therefore, the said petitions were taken up together.
3. The petitioner is blind and falls under the category of Persons
with Disabilities. At the material time, when W.P (C) 8299/2009 was
filed, the petitioner was a senior citizen (63 years of age). He has filed
the petition [W.P.(C) 8299/2009] on the basis that he was entitled for
preferential allotment of land at concessional rate for running a retail
outlet, in terms of Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,
particularly, since the petitioner had been issued a LOI dated
05.04.2006 by HPCL. The said LOI was cancelled by HPCL by a
letter dated 10.10.2007. However, the petitioner claims that the said
letter was not communicated to the petitioner and he became aware of
the same during the pendency of the proceedings in respect of W.P.(C)
8299/2009. This led the petitioner to file the second petition - W.P.(C)
129/2011 - impugning the letter dated 10.10.2007 issued by HPCL
cancelling the LOI dated 05.04.2006.
4. HPCL issued an advertisement on 28.03.2001 captioned
―NOTICE FOR DEALERSHIP FOR RETAIL OUTLET‖, inter alia,
stating that it proposed appointing dealers for Company Owned
Retails Outlets on sites owned/leased to the Company - HPCL. The
advertisement indicated that the said outlets were to be located at four
locations in Delhi: Delhi-6, Delhi-7, Delhi-13 and Delhi-11. The outlet
at Delhi-11 was reserved for persons falling under the Category
―Scheduled Caste (Women)‖ and the outlet at Delhi-6 was reserved
for persons falling under the category of ―Physically Handicapped‖.
The outlets at other two locations were under the ―Open‖ category.
The advertisement also indicated that for locations falling under Sr.
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (that is, locations at Delhi-6, Delhi-7 and Delhi-13),
the candidates should indicate the details of the land, which he/she
may make available for the outlet. The controversy involved in these
petitions relates to the location at Delhi-6.
5. The petitioner submitted an application under the Category of
Physically Handicapped, for allotment of a retail outlet. In its
application, the petitioner stated that he would arrange site as per the
Rules and Regulations of HPCL. The relevant extract of his
application is set out below:-
―16. FOR RETAIL OUTLETS/2-3 WHEELER MS
OUTLET DEALERSHIP ONLY
(i) Do you have a suitable site readily available or can
you arrange one in the area advertised within six
months, if selected? If yes, please give details.
Ans. I will arrange as per Rules & Regulations of
Hindustan Petroleum‖
6. The petitioner was called for interview for allotment of a site in
Delhi-6 and the merit list was issued on 27.02.2004. As per the merit
list, the petitioner was ranked at the third position. The site offered by
the candidate placed on the second position was not found suitable.
However, she was also issued an LOI dated 18.07.2005 with a specific
condition to provide land within a period of two months. Since she
could not provide the land for the site as required, the said LOI was
cancelled. The petitioner sent several letters complaining that he was
entitled to be issued an LOI immediately as the site as offered by the
candidate placed at position no. 2, was found unsuitable.
7. The petitioner was issued an LOI dated 05.04.2006 offering a
retail outlet dealership to the petitioner on the terms as set out therein.
This included the condition that the petitioner would make available a
suitable plot of land as indicated by him within a period of two months
from the date of the letter after getting suitable clearance from HPCL
in this regard. It was also stated that the petitioner was also required to
transfer the ownership of land or transfer on long lease for a period of
15 years with one renewal option for the next 15 years, under such
terms and conditions as may be agreed between the parties.
8. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said condition and sent a
letter dated 11.05.2006 to HPCL, inter alia, objecting to the specific
conditions for providing land. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also
sent several letters to various authorities including the Minister for
Petroleum and Natural Gas. The petitioner claims that he had not
offered to provide any land and, therefore, was also not awarded any
marks for the same in the interview held for selection of a dealer
pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.03.2001.
9. On 20.06.2006, HPCL sent a letter informing the petitioner that
advertisement in question was issued for four locations out of which
one was under the category for Physically Handicapped. Two
locations were under ―Open‖ category and one was under the
―Scheduled Caste (Women)‖ category. It was further explained to the
petitioner that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had issued
an Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2000 to provide a transparent,
uniform, fair and faster procedure for selection of a suitable candidates
and as per the said Guidelines all other categories except SC/ST
Candidates were required to provide land and certain other
infrastructure for being appointed to manage the retail outlet. It was
stated that there was a Corpus Fund Scheme for giving financial
assistance by Oil Companies but that scheme was applicable only to
ST/SC dealership/ distributorship. HPCL further clarified that the
petitioner's application for dealership was under ―Physically
Handicapped‖ category and advertisement clearly specified that
candidates for locations at Serial No. 1, 2 and 3 were required to
furnish the details of land which he/she would make available for the
retail outlet.
10. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid letter on 10.07.2006
by stating that he was not in agreement with the contents thereof.
However, he also stated that he had come across a piece of land in
village Kanjhawala, Delhi which appeared to be suitable for setting up
of a retail outlet and requested HPCL to inspect the same and if found
suitable, he would take the said land on lease/purchase from the
owner.
11. Apparently, a team from HPCL inspected the site offered by the
petitioner. However, the same was not found to be commercially
viable. HPCL communicated the same to petitioner by a letter dated
23.08.2006.
12. Thereafter, the petitioner sent several letters, both to MCD
seeking allotment of an appropriate site for setting up of a retail outlet,
as well as to HPCL protesting against the condition requiring the
petitioner to provide a site for the dealership.
13. The petitioner had requested MCD for allotment of a land and
also had pointed out sites that, according to the petitioner, were
available. In particular, the petitioner referred to two sites in Sanjay
Gandhi Transport Nagar, one site at Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur and one
site at Rajan Babu T.B. Hospital at Road No. 49. By a letter dated
13.04.2007, sent by the Additional Commissioner of Land and Estate
Department, the petitioner was informed that a retail outlet at
Naniwala Bagh could not be allotted. The petitioner was also informed
that permission could not be granted to carry business of a fuel station
at Hospital Campus at Road No. 49. According to the petitioner, the
zonal plan received from the Town and Planning Department did
indicate a site for petrol pump near Rajan Babu T.B. Hospital and,
therefore, the petitioner sought reconsideration of the said issue.
14. The petitioner continued to pursue with MCD for allotment of a
site for setting up of a retail outlet pursuant to the LOI issued to the
petitioner. However, the petitioner's efforts were in vain.
15. On 02.04.2008, the petitioner filed a complaint against the
MCD and Chief Town Planner before the Chief Commissioner. The
said proceedings culminated in an order dated 10.12.2008.
16. In the proceedings before the Chief Commissioner, it was
contended on behalf of MCD that the sites mentioned by the petitioner
at Road No. 49 and at Naniwala Bagh were not earmarked for a
petroleum pump as they fell within the area earmarked for General
Hospital and Community Centre respectively in the Zonal Plan/Master
Plan - 2021(MPD). This was disputed by the petitioner.
17. In this backdrop, the Chief Commissioner called upon the
respondents to submit a written reply and to produce the relevant files.
He also decided to implead the Chief Town Planner as a respondent in
the said proceedings and issued summons to him on 09.09.2008.
However, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and the matter
was proceeded ex parte. The Chief Commissioner came to the
conclusion that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the MCD
to deny rightful benefit to the petitioner. He also observed that the site
map submitted by the Town Planner, MCD indicated sites for
petroleum pump. Further, MPD-2021 also provided for norms for fuel
stations. In the given facts, the Chief Commissioner directed MCD to
allot suitable land under their jurisdiction to the petitioner for setting
up of a petrol pump within 30 days of the receipt of the order. He also
directed framing of a Scheme under Section 43 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 in favour of the Persons with Disabilities
within a period of 60 days and to publicize the same.
18. In the meanwhile, HPCL cancelled the LOI issued to the
petitioner by a letter dated 10.10.2007.
19. Mr Phoolka, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for North
Delhi Municipal Corporation (North-DMC) contested the petition on
several fronts. He submitted that there was no petroleum pump site in
Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, which could be provided to the
petitioner. He also referred to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of
the North-DMC affirming that it had been decided that the sites at
Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar would be allotted only to public
sector/oil companies/ government agencies. He also submitted that the
petitioner was allotted a Tehbazari site under the Physically
Handicapped Scheme. He submitted that the said site is located at the
corner of the footpath (New Lajpat Rai Market) at the Southern wall
of Shop No. 414, facing Esplanade Road (under peepal tree) and the
petitioner has been running a travel agency from the said site.
20. Mr Phoolka earnestly contended that the order dated 10.12.2008
passed by the Chief Commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction. He
submitted that the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
did not empower the Chief Commissioner of Disabilities to issue any
specific directions such as the one issued in this case. He relied upon
the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Air India Ltd. v.
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. W.P.(C) 2979 of
2003, decided on 21.05.2007 and the decision of a Division Bench of
this Court in Shah Afzal (Md.) v. Medical Council of India & Anr.:
2010 VI AD (Delhi) 762 and the decision of the Supreme Court in
State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin: (2010) 4
SCC 368 in support of his contention.
21. Mr Dayal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
drew the attention of this Court to several documents and referred to
the complaints in support of his contention that the MCD's stand that a
petroleum retail outlet could not established at the sites mentioned by
the petitioner or that the same could not be allotted to the petitioner,
was erroneous.
22. This Court is not inclined to enter above controversy for the
principal reason that the petitioner has been unable to establish a right
for being allotted a particular site. The petitioner has founded his
claim for allotment of a site for petroleum retail outlet, essentially, on
three grounds. First, he claims that he is entitled to such allotment by
virtue of the LOI issued by HPCL. Secondly, he claims that he is
entitled to a site by virtue of the order passed by the Chief
Commissioner. And, lastly, he claims that he is entitled to such
allotment as he is a person with disability and, therefore, is entitled to
a preferential treatment.
23. Admittedly, the LOI issued by HPCL in favour of the petitioner
has been withdrawn. Thus, the first and foremost issue to be addressed
is whether the letter dated 10.10.2007 issued by HPCL cancelling the
LOI dated 05.04.2006 is liable to be set aside.
24. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the advertisement dated
28.03.2001 issued by HPCL pursuant to which the petitioner had
submitted his application. The relevant extract of the said
advertisement is set out below:-
―HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
LIMITED
(A Govt. of India Enterprise)
NOTICE FOR DEALERSHIP FOR RETAIL OUTLET
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited proposes to
appoint dealers for Company Owned Retail Outlets on
site owned by the Company/leased to the Company at
various locations in the State of Delhi as per the table
below:
SR. LOCATION TOWN/AREA REVENUE STATE MKTG. CATEGORY
NO. DISTT.
1. Delhi-6 Delhi Delhi National 1999-2K Physically
Capital Handicapped
Territory
of Delhi
2. Delhi-7 Delhi Delhi -do- 1999-2K Open
3. Delhi-13 Delhi Delhi -do- 1999-2K Open
4. Delhi-11 Delhi Delhi -do- 1999-2K Schedule
Caste
(Women)
NOTE : For ―Physically Handicapped Candidates‖ : The
person should be orthopaedically handicapped to the
extent of a minimum of 40% permanent/partial disability
of either upper or lower limbs or 50% permanent/partial
disability of both upper and lower limbs together. For this
purpose, the standards contained in the Manual for
Orthopaedic Surgeon in evaluating Permanent Physically
Impairment brought out by the American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, USA and published on its behalf
by the Artifical Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of
India, G.T. Road, Kanpur, shall apply.
Deaf, Dumb and blind persons will also be eligible to
apply for all dealerships/distributorships under this
category.
For ―Schedule Caste Candidates‖ : A certificate in support
of the candidate belonging to SC category issued by a
competent authority notified by the Govt. of India will
have to be furnished by the candidates alongwith their
application.
ONLY
a. The candidate should furnish alongwith application,
detail of land, which he/she may make available for the
Retail Outlet.
b. Considering the location of the land from the point of
view of suitability from commercial angle and rates
acceptable to the company, applicants willing to transfer
the land on ownership / long lease to Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. would be given preference.
c. If an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the
land indicated by him/her in the application form within a
period of two months, from the date of Letter of Indent
(LOI), then the allotment of dealership made to him/her
will be cancelled.‖
25. It is apparent from the plain reading of the said Advertisement
that location at Delhi - 6 at Serial No.1 was proposed to be allotted to
a candidate under the category of ―Physically Handicapped‖. The note
to the advertisement clearly specified that the candidate for locations
under Serial No.1, 2 and 3 were required to furnish alongwith
application, details of land which he/she may make available for the
retail outlet. It was expressly provided that if the applicant, after
selection, is unable to provide the land indicated by him/her in the
application form within a period of two months from the date of LOI,
then the allotment of dealership made to him/her will be cancelled.
26. The petitioner was fully aware at the time that he was required
to provide an appropriate site for the dealership. The petitioner had
also clearly stated in his application that he would arrange the site as
per rules and regulations of HPCL. The petitioner is, thus, estopped
from contending that the land is required to be provided by HPCL.
27. The petitioner has sought to set up a case of discrimination by
alluding to the dealership allotted by HPCL pursuant to the
advertisements issued prior to 28.03.2001. The petitioner has claimed
that in the past, HPCL had allotted dealership without insisting on the
candidates providing land for the site. The petitioner had also referred
to allotment made pursuant an advertisement issued on 28.08.2000.
This contention was refuted by HPCL and it clarified that particular
instances referred to by the petitioner pertained to persons who had
applied under the ‗open' category and in terms of the advertisement
issued on 28.08.2000, the candidates were not required to provide land
for the dealership.
28. In any view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept that the
decision of HPCL to call for applications from only those candidates
who were willing to provide land, is discriminatory or falls foul of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely because HPCL in past
had called for applications without such condition does not preclude
HPCL from changing the eligibility criteria. HPCL's decision to allot
dealership only on the condition that the candidates provide land for
the same is, plainly, within their commercial discretion; and if the said
condition is applied uniformly to all applicants in a particular category
(submitting their application pursuant to the particular advertisement),
the petitioner can have no grievance in this regard.
29. It is also relevant to state that Smt Versha Malhotra - the
candidate who was placed in the second position - was also unable to
provide the suitable site within the specified period of two months
and, therefore, the LOI issued to her was also cancelled. Aggrieved
by the same, Smt Versha Malhotra preferred a writ petition W.P.(C)
12578/2006 before this Court challenging the decision of HPCL in
cancelling her LOI. The said petition was dismissed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 27.04.2009. This Court held that Smt Versha
Malhotra was fully aware of the conditions to make available to the
suitable plot of land within a period of two months from the date of
the LOI and had been unable to satisfy the same. Therefore, the
decision of HPCL to cancel the LOI could not be faulted.
30. The present petitions must also share the same fate as the case
of Smt Versha Malhotra [W.P.(C) 12578/2006]. The petitioner was
fully aware of his obligations to provide a suitable land and had
applied for the dealership confirming that he would provide the land
as per the rules and regulations of HPCL. Admittedly, the petitioner
did not have a suitable site at the time of making his application and
he was unable to arrange suitable plot of land within a period of two
months as required. Thus, this Court found no infirmity with the
decision of the HPCL in cancelling the LOI.
31. In view of the above, the very foundation of the petitioner's
claim for an allotment of land from MCD stands eroded and it is not
necessary to examine whether, in fact, any site for a petroleum retail
outlet is available with MCD (or its successors including North-
MCD). In any view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim a
preferential right for allotment of any particular site. At best, the
petitioner can claim that a scheme for preferential allotment of land at
concessionaire rates be framed for persons with disabilities. The
petitioner, of course, would have full right to participate in preferential
allotment of land along with other similarly placed persons. However,
the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to allotment on account
of his disability. Surely, if this was so, other persons with similar
disabilities would be equally entitled for allotment of land.
32. This Court is also of the view that the directions issued by the
Commissioner are also unsustainable. Section 58 of The Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 specifies the functions of the Chief
Commissioner. Section 59 of the said Act also enables the Chief
Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to matters relating
to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities. Section 58 and 59
of the said Act are set out below:-
"58. Functions of the Chief Commissioner.-The
Chief Commissioner shall--
(a) coordinate the work of the Commissioners;
(b) monitor the utilization of funds disbursed by
the Central Government;
(c) take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities
made available to persons with disabilities;
(d) submit reports to the Central Government on
the implementation of the Act at such intervals as the
Government may prescribe.
59. Chief Commissioner to look into complaints
with respect to deprivation of rights of persons
with disabilities.--Without prejudice to the
provisions of section 58 the Chief Commissioner
may of his own motion or on the application of any
aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints
with respect to matters relating to--
(a) deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities;
(b) non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-
laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or
instructions made or issued by the appropriate
Governments and the local authorities for the
welfare and protection of rights or persons with
disabilities,
and take up the matter with the appropriate
authorities.‖
33. It is apparent from the above that the Chief Commissioner is not
empowered to give a specific direction for allotment of a land to any
particular person as has been done in this case.
34. In Shah Afzal (Md.) v. Medical Council of India & Anr.: 2010
VI AD (DELHI) 762, a Division Bench of this Court had examined
the role of the Chief Commissioner and had observed as under:-
27. We also notice that Section 59 begins with the
word ―without prejudice to the provisions of Section
58‖ and empowers the Chief Commissioner to look
into the complaints (either on his own motion or on an
application by an aggrieved person or otherwise) with
respect to matters relating to (a) deprivation of rights
of persons with disabilities; (b) non-implementation
of laws, rules, byelaws, regulations, executive orders,
guidelines or instructions made or issued by the
appropriate Governments and the local authorities for
the welfare and protection of rights or persons with
disabilities and to take up the matter with the
appropriate authorities. We are mindful of the fact
that we are dealing with a beneficial legislation and,
therefore, the provisions should be interpreted and
construed in a manner which advances the benefits
given under the said legislation. Consequently, the
powers and functions of the Commissioner would
have to be given the widest amplitude possible within
the four corners of the provisions of the said Act
itself. We cannot, of course, while giving a liberal
interpretation, travel beyond the provisions of the Act
or some other statutory provisions which could never
have been the intention of Parliament. Therefore, the
expressions ―look into complaints‖ and ―to take up the
matter with the appropriate authorities‖ cannot be
elevated to the status of a case in court and an order or
judgment passed by a court. The Chief Commissioner
is certainly required to and is empowered to look into
any transgression of the rights of persons with
disabilities as also to examine the issue of non-
implementation of laws etc. which are for the welfare
and protection of rights of persons with disabilities,
but, having considered the complaint, the Chief
Commissioner is required to take up the matter with
the appropriate authorities so as to prevent and or
remove any deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities and also to ensure implementation of the
laws for the welfare and protection of the rights of
persons with disabilities. There is no doubt that, for
certain purposes, the Chief Commissioner as also the
Commissioners, by virtue of Section 63 of the said
Act, have been given certain powers of a civil court
while trying a suit. However, such powers are
exercisable by the Chief Commissioner for
summoning and enforcing the attendance of
witnesses, requiring the discovery and production of
any documents, requisitioning any public record or
copy thereof from any court or office, receiving
evidence on affidavits and issuing commissions for
the examination of witnesses or documents. The
powers are limited to such matters only and do not
entail that because such powers in certain matters
have been given to the Chief Commissioner and the
Commissioners, as the case may be, they are to be
equated with civil courts. That is certainly not the
intention of the legislature and that is not how we read
it.
28. xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
29. Going back to Section 59 of the said Act, we find
that the Chief Commissioner has only been
empowered to look into complaints and to take up the
matter with the appropriate authorities. Once the
Chief Commissioner has looked into the complaint
and has come to a ‗decision' and thereupon the Chief
Commissioner takes up the matter with the
appropriate authorities, the said authorities cannot
contend that the view of the Chief Commissioner can
be totally ignored or side-stepped. We feel that once
the Chief Commissioner takes a view on a particular
complaint and then takes up the matter with an
appropriate authority, if such view is permissible in
law, then the appropriate authority would be obliged
to redress and remove the grievance of the
complainant. In case the concerned authority does not
take any action whatsoever, it would then be open to
the aggrieved person to approach the High Court
under Article 226 for an appropriate writ, direction or
order, if he makes out a case of deprivation of a right
or non-implementation of laws, rules etc. providing
for the welfare and protection of rights of persons
with disabilities. But, this does not mean that the
order or direction given by the Chief Commissioner,
by itself, is elevated to the status of an order passed by
a court.‖
35. As stated above, the Chief Commissioner could take up the
matter with the concerned authorities to ensure that an appropriate
scheme is made to provide preferential treatment to persons with
disabilities in allotment of land; however, no specific directions to
provide preference to the petitioner could be issued. The petitioner has
no right whatsoever to seek preference over other persons with similar
disabilities.
36. In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed. The pending
applications are disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own
costs.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 09, 2018
RK
