Jagan Memorial Sarva Seva Samiti Gwalior Through Its President Smt. Sadhana Sandilya vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation were not illegal or perverse. The Court found no ambiguity or arbitrariness, emphasizing that the petitioner had entered into the agreement with open eyes, acknowledging the clear stipulation in Clause 1 of the agreement. This clause explicitly allowed the Corporation to seek possession of the hall upon 15 days' notice if it was needed, without the petitioner having any right to object. While the Court found no legal right for the petitioner to continue occupying the hall, it directed the Corporation to consider the social cause for which the petitioner was using the hall on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner was instructed to submit a representation to the Corporation within seven days, which the Corporation was directed to consider sympathetically and take an appropriate decision within one month.

Facts

The petitioner, Jagan Memorial Sarva Seva Samiti, filed a writ petition challenging two notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The first notice, dated 28.02.2024, from the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), directed the petitioner to vacate a Community Hall within 15 days. The second notice, dated 19.04.2004, from the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), ordered the immediate vacation of the same hall. The hall was leased to the petitioner for imparting education to children with disabilities at a monthly rent of Rs. 5255 GST for three years, as per an agreement dated 29.09.2023, following an allotment order dated 08.12.2022. The notices cited the Corporation's need for the hall for social and cultural programs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, directing the petitioner to vacate the Community Hall are illegal and arbitrary, in light of the petitioner's reliance on Sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which impose a statutory duty on local authorities to provide accessible facilities for the education of children with disabilities? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the notices are illegal as it is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation, as a local authority, to provide accessible facilities for children with disabilities, as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. They argued that issuing eviction notices without providing an opportunity for a hearing is bad in law and prayed for the quashing of the notices and a direction for a hearing. Respondents' arguments: The respondents relied on Clause 1 of the agreement dated 29.09.2023, which stipulated that the Corporation could reclaim possession of the hall upon giving 15 days' notice if the hall was needed, and the petitioner would have no right to object.