Karnataka High Court Quashes Direction to Allot Site Without Application

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed a direction by the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities asking the Mandya Urban Development Authority to allot a residential site to complainant P. Chandrashekar though he had filed no application. Justice Suraj Govindaraj said disability by itself creates no right to a site outside the procedure under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Rules, 1991. The order comes as claims by persons with disabilities are again in focus ahead of the annual observance of day for persons with disabilities, and it links eligibility under disability law to a timely application.

Chandrashekar was described in the proceedings as a social activist with 80 per cent locomotor disability. The Commission had directed allotment in his favour. Before the High Court, the Authority said no allotment could be ordered where the claimant had not sought it in the manner required by law. The Court accepted that argument. It said a person who wants a site must apply in the prescribed form after a public notification, and the Authority can consider only such applications.

Commission ordered allotment without application

According to the order, the Mandya authority last invited applications in 2002. Chandrashekar had neither registered nor applied under that notification. There was therefore no pending application before the Authority for the Commission to act on. In the absence of an application, the Court said, a direction to allot could not stand. It set aside the direction on that ground.

Under the 1991 Rules, the system works on notification. The authority notifies the sites available, calls for applications in the prescribed form, scrutinises them and prepares lists for allotment under the categories in the scheme. A claim for preference as a person with disability works inside that system. It does not replace it. Without an application, the authority has no way to check eligibility, compare rival claims, apply reservation or fix seniority.

Rules require application after notification

Justice Govindaraj said meeting the medical test for disability alone gives no right to a site. The claimant must still ask for a site through the channel the Rules provide. That rule, the Court said, is fair to others who apply in time, pay the deposit and wait for their turn. Allotment without application would make the notification system meaningless and leave the authority facing open-ended demands unrelated to the sites notified.

On the Commission's powers, the Court drew a line. The State Commission for Persons with Disabilities safeguards rights and redresses grievances of persons with disabilities. It can direct compliance with reservation and other legal safeguards. The High Court did not question that role. It said the role must be used in keeping with the allotment Rules. A direction that skips the Rules cannot stand even when meant to help a person with disability.

day for persons with disabilities: allotment procedure explained

The order lays down procedure, not a bar. Persons with disabilities keep the reservation and priority the scheme gives, but they must claim it by filing the prescribed application when the authority seeks it. The authority must then process the application under the quota and give reasons if it denies allotment.

Here the lack of any application decided the case. Since Chandrashekar had not applied under the 2002 notification, there was no file to consider, no deposit to adjust and no seniority to count. The Court recorded that fact and set aside the allotment direction. At the same time it left the door open. Chandrashekar may apply when Mandya next invites applications, with the benefit of seniority at that stage.

Seniority benefit in future round

Seniority decides the order of allotment inside each category after reservation. By giving Chandrashekar seniority benefit in a future round, the Court tried to offset the delay and to ensure his earlier complaint does not go against him. It is no promise of a site. His future application will carry the weight of the earlier claim for place in the queue, subject to availability of sites, payment and verification.