Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
V. Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Department of Welfare Differentially Abled – Respondent
WA No. 1421 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Muthamizhselvakumar
For the Respondents: L. S. M. Hasan Fizal

The court directed relevant authorities to collectively consider and dispose of an application for business space and financial assistance made by an individual with a benchmark disability, ensuring statutory compliance under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge by an individual with a benchmark disability who sought permission to establish a petty shop and requested financial assistance under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. While the lower court directed certain respondents to consider the representation, the appellant challenged the order due to the omission of a necessary entity that manages the space required for the business. The Court observed that the grievance was justified as the involvement of all relevant entities was essential for the effective implementation of the request. The primary issue concerns whether the original judicial directive was sufficiently broad to include all parties necessary to adjudicate the petitioner's request for space allotment and financial aid. The Court determined that the order required modification to ensure that all relevant respondents were mandated to dispose of the representation collectively, thereby ensuring compliance with the statutory framework intended to support individuals with disabilities. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts regarding an application for business space and financial aid. (Para 2)
2. modification of orders to include all necessary respondents for effective administrative compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The appellant is suffering from Bench Mark Disability. She applied to the 3^rd Respondent seeking permission to allot her space to set up a petty shop. She also wanted financial assistance from the respondents 1 and 2. Since her request was not considered, she filed writ petition in WP.No.4262 of 2026.

3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition on

22.04.2026 on the following terms;

“3. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 1^st respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 31.12.2025, seeking for granting permission to the petitioner for running a Petty shop at the address morefully disclosed in the prayer to this Writ Petition and also for the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps for financial assistance to the petitioner for supporting her business as per the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Questioning the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

5. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that no direction has been given to the 3^rd Respondent.

6. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge would encompass not only the respondents 1 and 2, but also the respondent No.3. The Respondents 1 to 3 will dispose of the application in question within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJV. Chandra – AppellantVersusCommissioner Department of Welfare Differentially Abled – RespondentWA No. 1421 of 2026

The court directed relevant authorities to collectively consider and dispose of an application for business space and financial assistance made by an individual with a benchmark disability, ensuring statutory compliance under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
V. Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Department of Welfare Differentially Abled – Respondent
WA No. 1421 of 2026