The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to consider it as part of social service done to allow a disabled man allotted a stall to run public telephone booth, to sell food items, as his business has dwindled to the increase in use of mobile phones.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to consider it as part of social service done to allow a disabled man allotted a stall to run public telephone booth, to sell food items, as his business has dwindled to the increase in use of mobile phones.
A division bench comprising of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice G S Kulkarni told the MSRTC that if they could reserve seats for handicapped people in buses, then why were they evicting an individual who has a 70% disability. The individuals operating the PCOs are usually disabled.
The bench made the observation, while hearing a petition filed by the corporation, challenging an order of the Disabilities Commissioner, granting stay on the eviction notice and allowing the stall owner, Devidas Jhambulkar, to continue selling eatables.
Jambhulkar who has been running his stall for several years, at the State Transport bus stand near Pune railway station was served an eviction notice by the corporation claiming that with the increase in mobile phone services, there was no need to continue with his stall providing public telephone and STD services. The bench agreed with this argument of the corporation, with discontinuation of the public phone services, saying “Of course with the increase in mobile telephone reach and drop in call charges almost making it free for users. It is no point in continuing the service.”
However, the court also suggested that since the stall owners has been selling other items like snacks etc at the stall, the corporation can consider, regularizing it and allowing him to sell only specific eatables. The court also said that the transport undertaking can put a clause on the owner that he would be allowed to sell only these many items.
The counsel for corporation Advocate G S Hegde said “The court has asked us to take instructions on whether such a liberty can be granted to the stall owner, who is continuing his business for several years. After going through the policy of the corporation, it will take an appropriate decision and inform the court by next week.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Representational image")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}