ORDER :

C.M. Poonacha, J.

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the General Standing Order No.761/2015 dated 05.03.2015 bearing No.KST/CO/TR/COM/C-3/7720/2014-15 "Annexure-A"

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to provide 10% reservation for physically challenged person in fresh General Standing Order to participate in all the Tenders.

c) Pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is a Society formed with an object of protecting the rights of physically challenged persons. That the first Respondent who operates transport services in the State of Karnataka has adopted various measures for betterment of the physically challenged persons including providing shops in BMTC and KSRTC Bus Stands, wheel chairs to the physically disabled, etc., which has helped about 2000 physically challenged persons in making a living.

3. It is the further case of the Petitioner that by virtue of Section 37 (c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2016'), the first Respondent is liable to provide a reservation of 5% in its business which it has failed to do in the General Standing Order bearing No.KST/CO/TR/COM/C-3/7720/2014-15, dated 5.3.2015. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the aforementioned reliefs.

4. The first Respondent has opposed the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition and has also filed the Statement of Objections.

5. Heard Sri B.C.Chethan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.P.D.Surana, learned Counsel for the first Respondent and learned AGA for the second Respondent.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterating the contentions putforth in the Writ Petition and relying on Section 37 (c) of the Act, 2016, has sought for grant of the reliefs as prayed for.

7. Per contra, Sri.P.D.Surana, learned Counsel for the first Respondent has filed a Memo dated 26.5.2023 furnishing a copy of the General Standing Order dated 26.7.2017 and submits that the said General Standing Order dated 26.7.2017 has been passed in place of the General Standing Order dated 5.3.2015 in respect of which the reliefs have been sought in the Writ Petition and on this ground alone, sought for dismissal of this Petition. He further submits that the nature of advertisement business involves mobilization of capital and the said business being a very competitive one, it is not possible for the persons with disability to participate in the same. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

8. In response to the submission of Sri P.D.Surana, learned Counsel for the first Respondent regarding the advertising business being a competitive one, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are various organizations who provides finances and supports the endeavors of persons with disabilities in carrying out their business activities.

9. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The question that arises for consideration is:

Whether the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition are liable to be granted?

10. It is relevant to note that the Act, 2016, has been enacted pursuant to the India ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), wherein certain principles were laid down to be followed by the signatory States for empow