IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Smt. Nagamma, W/o. Late Narasimhaiah - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.21320 Of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 16-02-2023
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Section 13, 18 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 46 - Widow of manual scavenger - Allot a site or house - Rehabilitation to family members - Petitioner seeking a direction to consider representation submitted by her and allot a site or house and sought direction to ensure provision of rehabilitation to petitioner and her family members in time bound manner – It was responsibility of respondents not only to have allotted plot, but to have granted financial assistance - Para 12.
Finding of the Court:
Grant of financial assistance is imperative and there are several other benefits that any manual scavenger who is prohibited from that work gets in terms of Act - Situation in case at hand is worse - Husband of petitioner who was a manual scavenger dies due to manual scavenging, an act which was clearly prohibited on date on which husband of petitioner died - Therefore, it was responsibility of respondents not only to have allotted plot, but to have granted financial assistance - Section 13 supra mandates such financial assistance to persons who have been rehabilitated on prohibiting manual scavenging and to family of such manual scavenger who dies during such dehumanizing job - Petitioner shall also be granted all such financial assistance and benefits that would flow from Section 13 of Act - Respondents/State, particularly 2nd and 4th respondents, shall oversee that all benefits under Act qua Section 13 are conferred upon petitioner and not drive her to another round of litigation.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by her and allot a site or house in Doddabelavangala Village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and also further sought a direction to take immediate steps to ensure provision of rehabilitation to the petitioner and her family members in time bound manner in accordance with law.
2. Heard Clifton D’Rozario, Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan along with Smt. Shilpa Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri M.S. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.
3. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The petitioner is the wife of one late Narasimhaiah. Narasimhaiah was forced to perform manual scavenging and he was directed to go inside the manhole in Yehahanka, Bangalore at which time he died due to asphyxiation because of negligence which was directly attributable to the 3rd respondent, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The petitioner and her husband belonged to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner, widow of the manual scavenger who was put to death due to the act of the 3rd respondent gave representations to rehabilitate her and her family members since they were all dependent on the income derived from the scavenging activity of her husband. Rehabilitation was not acceded to immediately after the death of the husband, which drove the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.21320 of 2011.
4. This Court disposed of the petition on 14-09-2011 directing immediate action to be taken for rehabilitation of the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a representation after the order was passed by this Court and long thereafter, in the year 2012, a site was allotted to the petitioner and the entries concerning the site were changed in favour of the petitioner. Even after passage of time, the petitioner could not construct the house due to lack of funds. In the year 2022, the 6th respondent/Panchayat Development Officer, Doddabelavangala Panchayat noticing the fact that the petitioner had not constructed any house despite passage of nine years, after allotment of the site, took over the site and marked it for the purpose of construction of Nada Kacheri. This was not made known to the petitioner. Later, when the petitioner enquired, she was assured that she would be given an alternate site. The petitioner gave plethora of representations seeking re-allotment of site in her favour and the 6th respondent/Panchayat Development Officer indicated to the Tahsildar regarding such re-allotment. Even then no allotment was made. It is then the petitioner has again knocked at the doors of this Court, ironically with the same writ petition number after 11 years.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that rehabilitation of family of the manual scavenger by prohibiting manual scavenging activity is the mandate of the statute. Any deviation from the same would become a penal offence. The learned counsel would further emphasize that the petitioner could not construct the house in a site that was allotted due to financial constraints and, therefore, she kept the site vacant. If the site was needed for public purpose, it was the bounden duty of the State to provide alternate site and minimum finance for construction of the house, as the petitioner herself belong to lower strata of the society, doing menial jobs for her survival and therefore, would submit that suitable direction be given as sought for. He would submit that the act of the respondents in dispossessing a scheduled caste lady would amount to an offence under the atrocities Act.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing th
Section 13 of Act reads as rehabilitation of persons identified as manual scavengers by a Municipality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a land oustee, whose residential house has been acquired, is entitled to employment under Clause 3(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Pol....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to submit a redevelopment scheme, despite an opportunity granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, did not entitle the petitio....
Accommodation as per scheme - Since documents produced by petitioner by way of this petition even after number of years after rehabilitation process is over - Those documents are insufficient and wou....
The State has a duty to provide timely rehabilitation and fair compensation to project-affected persons, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The importance of exercising vested rights within the specified time frame and the authority's discretion in cancellation of allotment.
When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PESA Act, Forest Rights Act, and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013 were not applicable to the petitioners' case, and the Orissa Rehabilitation and ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.