Special Privileges

Godawari Bai vs. DDA & ors

Filed under: Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner: Godawari Bai
Respondents: DDA & ors
Citation: 1990 (Supp) SCC 124
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Ranganath Misra , P.B. Sawant and K.Ramaswamy

Facts

Godawari Bai was a blind woman who had applied to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the allotment of a flat. A dispute arose between the DDA and Godawari on the subject of the kind of flat she had applied for i.e. a Janta Flat, an MIG Flat or LIG Flat.

However, before the Supreme Court Godawari’s lawyer stated that she was prepared to take an MIG Flat.

Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court directed the DDA to make an out of turn allotment of an MIG Flat to Godawari Bai.

Further, the Supreme Court stated that the allotment was to be made within three months of payment of the deposit by Godawari Bai and she was to be given preference with respect to accommodation in South Delhi, and a ground floor flat, it possible.  

Sections Referred:

  • Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Top

Mohanan P, Ambikavilasam and Ors vs. State of Kerala rep. by its Secretary and Anr

Filed under: Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Mohanan P, Ambikavilasam and Ors
Respondent: State of Kerala rep. by its Secretary and Anr
Citation: W.A.No.941 of 2002 Decided on 12.04.2002
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: B.N. Srikrishna and G. Shivrajan

Facts

For about 10 years, Mohanan P, Ambikavilasam and others had been carrying on their business in bunks within the limits of Trivandrum Municipal Corporation. They were doing so without any authorization or license. Subsequently, their bunks were seized and as a result, they did no business for the preceding decade. Challenging this, they filed a Writ Petition and the Single Judge directed that Trivandrum Municipal Corporation should consider their case with sympathy. Mohanan and Others filed an appeal against this order.

Arguments made on behalf of the Sate of Kerala

The Secretary of the State of Kerala contended that they had been sympathetically considering the cases of Mohanan and Ors to provide them with alternative means of livelihood. However, according to the Secretary, they did not think that Mohanan and Ors had any rights, which could be enforced through the Writ Petition.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. Under the said provision, the State Government and the local authorities were obligated to frame a scheme in favor of persons with disabilities for a preferential allotment of land at concessional rates. The Court noted that the Government pleader was not aware whether such a scheme had been framed, a fact that was confirmed by the lawyer for the Corporation.

Therefore, the Court held that Section 43 directs an obligation on the State Government to structure such schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Top

Instruments Orthopedics vs. Collector of C.Ex

Filed under: Excise Law
Appellants: Instruments Orthopedics
Respondent: Collector of C.Ex
Citation: 1998 (99) ELT 60 (Tri-Del)
Court: In the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
Judge: K. Sankararaman (T) S.L. Peeran

Facts

Instrument Orthopedics, a company that manufactures orthopedic implants like hip joints, screes, (sic) plates, nails etc. that are used in joints, broken bones during orthopedic surgeries, was not given the benefit of full exemption from duty granted under Notification 71/86-C.E for artificial limbs rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. Accordingly, duty demand of Rs.95, 972.10 was confirmed leading to the present appeal.

Arguments made on behalf of Instrument Orthopedics

It was argued on behalf of Instrument Orthopedics that they had submitted the technical information before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim that the goods in question fell within the scope of the expression used in the subject exempting notification but the same had not been considered while passing the order. It was contended that the Additional Collector had taken a narrow view in stating that rehabilitation aids for the handicapped would only extend to articles like crutches and hearing aids and not to items, which are used by orthopedic surgeons. It was further argued that without the use of the subject items, a person with serious injuries in his/her bones could not function normally. It was only with the implant of such items in his bones that near normal functioning could be achieved. For these reasons, it was contended that the appeal be allowed the orders set aside.

Arguments made on behalf of C.Ex

It was argued on behalf of Central Excise that the items covered in the exemption notification were artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. It was also argued that the subject items were not artificial limbs, as that would refer to the complete limbs itself like hand or arm or leg or foot and not certain implants, which were only used at the time of surgery. The parts and components of artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped were to be used within the factory in the manufacture of the limbs and aids themselves. This would go to show that items of the type in question were not covered by the exemption notification during the material period. Therefore, it was argued that the appeal should be dismissed.

Observations of the Court

After going through the record particularly the technical information that had been placed before it, the Court held that the implants mentioned satisfy the description given in the exemption notification and the Additional Collector had erred in rejecting the same for denying the benefit of exemption. Relying on an earlier case dealing with a similar issue, the Court held that the technical certificates produced by Instruments Orthopedics before the adjudicating authority clearly showed that the subject goods were mentioned in the exemption notification. These not having been disputed by any expert opinion, the validity of the certificates had to be accepted. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside.

The appeal was allowed.

Case Referred:

  • Collector vs. Vishal Surgical Equipment, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal)

Top