Judges Not "Mughals", Can't Transcend Law To Do Justice: Karnataka HC Refuses To Extend Disabled Shop Owner's Lease Beyond Statutory Limit

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which directed the City Municipal Council of Channapatna to extend the lease of a shop allotted to a disabled person to 20 years, instead of the stipulated 12-years lease period.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the Council by citing a Government Circular dated 26.10.2009 which prescribes a maximum period of 12 years lease of these properties for disabled persons under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It said,

“The learned Single Judge could not have lightly construed such an instrument of law to the prejudice of public interest and conversely to the advantage of a private citizen. No writ can be issued in derogation of law. Writ Courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law, to say the least. Obviously, they cannot arrogate to themselves the extraordinary power vested in the Apex Court of the country under Article 142 of the Constitution. After all, we are Judges and therefore, cannot act like mughals of a bygone era. More is not necessary to specify.”

Council had issued a notification in September 2009 calling for applications for the grant of lease of certain shopping premises by way of auction. Siddaramu, who was having 80% locomotor disability was allotted one shop [under the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 read with The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) (Karnataka) Rules, 2003, re-enacted as Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016] for a period of 12 years, failing which his deposit would be forfeited. His challenge to the same came to be favoured by the impugned order which elongated the lease period to 20 years. Siddaramu died during pendency of the appeal and his widow continued opposing the appelate proceedings.

The bench noted that the allotment in question, unlike others, was not under any public auction but in terms of statutory order made under the provisions of the erstwhile 1995 Act on the specific ground of respondent-allottee's 80% locomotor disability. It thus held,

“We find no indication that allotments of the kind can be treated as being heritable so that the spouse & children can succeed to the so-called 'estate' of the deceased allottee...We hasten to add that if allotment was of a site, house or the like, obviously that would have been of permanent character subject to all just exceptions and the same could have had heritability. Thus, allotment of the kind comes to an end either by efflux of time or by death of the allottee, whichever is earlier.”

In this case since the respondent–allottee had passed away, Court said his widow and children do not have anything to inherit.

Court went on to note that even the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017 do not intend to protect the dependents of persons with disability, once he breathes his last. It said, “It hardly needs to be stated that the courts in the guise of interpretative process cannot expand the scope of a Welfare Legislation of the kind beyond what is intended by the Legislature nor they cannot manhandle the provisions of a statute to rope in others whom its intent & policy content do not admit to the precincts of law.”

Court also rejected the contention of the allottee that he is standing on par with the auctioneers who had secured lease for a tenure of 20 years. It said, “Firstly, no Rule or Ruling supporting such a claim is brought to our notice. Secondly, the argument of parity even otherwise does not avail because of obvious differences obtaining in the mode of allotments namely one is made under a socio-welfare legislation whereas, the others are by normal mode of public auction. These dissimilarities galoring on record repel the contention of equality/parity.”

The bench added that lease is a matter of contract and Courts cannot rewrite the same, in the absence of statutory enablement.

However, the court granted a temporary reprieve to the widow of the allottee so that she can shift her business to some other premise within a reasonable period. It directed, “If the widow is asked to vacate the same forthwith, she & the minor children may be put to a great hardship. Some reasonable period to vacate the shop premises needs to be granted so that business can be shifted to some other place. The Municipality and such other authorities view the claim of the allottee's widow for issuance of license/altered license with leniency to facilitate such shifting.”

Accordingly, it set aside the single bench order and the widow was permitted to remain in the occupation of shop till December 31, 2024, subject to complying with the usual conditions of allotment.

Appearance: Advocate A V Gangadharappa for Appellant.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari for Advocate Naveen Chandra V for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

Case Title: City Municipal Council Channapatna AND Siddaramu & ANR

Case No: WA NO.1983 OF 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order