(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.19136 / 2020/ L.5 dated 24.01.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vires and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner to establish an Aavin Milk Booth within the District Collectorate Campus in accordance with the G.O. (Ms) No. 20 dated 14.07.2022 and to pass such further or other orders.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent on 24.01.2025 and to quash the same, and consequently direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to establish an Aavin milk booth within the District Collectorate campus, Erode, in accordance with G.O. (Ms) No.20 dated 14.07.2022.

2. The petitioner, a person with hearing impairment, certified as having 78% disability, appeared as a party-in-person and argued his case. Though he required some concentration, he was able to hear, understand and respond to the questions posed by the Court during the hearing and argue the matter effectively. He also responded instantly to the arguments advanced by the other side, like any other person. As such, I am satisfied that the petitioner duly argued his case.

3. The petitioner is a 71-years-old senior citizen and an RTI activist. The Government of Tamil Nadu, through the Differently Abled Welfare Department, issued G.O. (Ms) No. 20 on 14.07.2022, permitting persons with disabilities to establish Aavin milk booths on government premises, including those under the Revenue Department, with exemption from payment of rent and advance and waiver of security deposit, as a welfare measure to promote selfemployment.

4. To earn his livelihood, the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.11.2022 seeking permission to establish an Aavin milk booth in a 10 feet × 10 feet space within the District Collectorate campus, Erode, free of rent, in accordance with the Government Order. By a communication dated 02.12.2022, the General Manager of the Erode District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited forwarded and recommended the petitioner’s application, acknowledging his eligibility to run an Aavin milk booth under the welfare scheme.

5. Pursuant to the Government Order, the Commissioner for the Welfare of Differently Abled, Chennai, issued a circular dated 09.02.2023 addressed to all District Collectors, requiring the allotment of space on a priority basis to persons with disabilities for establishing Aavin milk booths in government complexes, including District Collectorate campuses, Taluk offices, Block Development offices, and other government offices, with exemption from rent.

6. The Commissioner for the Welfare of Differently Abled, addressed communications dated 03.04.2025, 16.06.2025 and 23.09.2025, seeking a report on the allotment of space to the petitioner. On 16.09.2025, the petitioner personally submitted a petition to the office of the Commissioner for the Welfare of Differently Abled.

7. Thereafter, by a communication dated 02.12.2025, the petitioner was informed that the District Collector had submitted a report dated 24.06.2025, stating that permitting commercial establishments, such as tea stalls or eateries, within the Collectorate campus would affect its official functioning. On that basis, the petitioner’s request was rejected.

8. The request made by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.01.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

9. The Writ Petition is resisted by the second respondent by filing a counter-affidavit. It is the case of the second respondent that, by a circular dated 19.01.2010 issued by the Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, permission to run commercial establishments, such as typewriting institutes, public telephone exchanges, petty shops and tea shops, within government offices was specifically directed to be avoided, as such activities were likely to interfere with and disrupt the smooth and efficient functioning of those offices.

10. The second respondent acknowledges that G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 14.07.2022 was issued by the Differently Abled Persons Welfare Department as a welfare measure. However, according to the second respondent, it only enables the allotment of space for establishing Aavin milk booths within government office premises, subject to administrative feasibility. Where establishing a milk booth is feasible, preference should be given to a person with disability, and no rent should be charged. The Government Order does not confer any absolute right on the petitioner.

11. In the present case, the second respondent contends that the District Collectorate campus at Erode is a high-traffic administrative zone, with inadequate staff and insufficient parking space, and that the establishment of a milk booth is likely to affect the day-to-day functioning of the office. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner’s request was rejected.

12. A reply counter-affidavit has been filed, setting out the names of the former District Collector and other officials, and the actions taken by them so far in relation to the petitioner’s request. It is contended that G.O. Ms No. 20, being a welfare measure for persons with disabilities, should be strictly complied with. The earlier communications and other documents have also been placed on record.

13. During the previous hearings, considering that the petitioner is a senior citizen, my predecessor directed the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents to obtain instructions on whether any space, other than the one sought by the petitioner, was available for establishing an Aavin milk booth. In response, the authorities expressed their willingness to offer four alternative sites outside the District Collectorate campus, which were considered feasible for establishing an Aavin milk booth for the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner declined those sites, and the matter thereafter proceeded to arguments.

14. The petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that there was no reason to reject his request and that a person with a disability had the right to run an Aavin milk booth. He contended that an Aavin milk booth could not be equated with tea stalls and similar establishments. Apart from enabling a person with a disability to earn a livelihood, it would provide quality Aavin products, Aavin being a cooperative union administered by the State of Tamil Nadu.

15. The petitioner further submitted that the earlier reports of the former District Collectors and other authorities indicated that steps were being taken towards allotting space to him. He contended that his lawful entitlement was denied in a vindictive manner merely because he had questioned the authorities under the Right to Information Act.

16. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government Order, as stated in the counteraffidavit, was only an enabling provision and did not confer any absolute right on the petitioner. Space could be allotted to him only if such allotment was feasible.

17. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material records of the case. A perusal of the Government Order shows that Aavin had formulated a scheme to allot 200 booths to differently abled persons throughout Tamil Nadu, with a subsidy of Rs.50,000/- per beneficiary. To ensure that persons with disabilities establishing such milk booths did not incur losses due to payment of rent, a request was made to the Government to exempt them from payment of advance and rent.

18. The Government considered and accepted the request to exempt Aavin milk booths established by differently abled persons from payment of security deposit/advance and rent. Thus, G.O. (Ms.) No. 20 expressly dispenses with payment of advance and rent. It does not, however, impose a positive obligation on the second respondent, the District Collector, to allot space. Allotment of space is subject to its availability and the authorities’ assessment of the desirability of such allotment.

19. To the extent possible, the beneficial provisions concerning persons with disabilities should be implemented, as such implementation would further the objects and purposes of the statutory duties cast upon the State under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

20. However, where the District Collector is of the opinion that allotment of space within a particular Collectorate office complex is not feasible and would interfere with the functioning of the offices, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot sit over the said decision as if an appellate authority.

21. There is no mandatory provision requiring the establishment of an Aavin milk booth at every District Collectorate campus. In the absence of a Government Order or statutory provision mandating such establishment, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot issue a writ compelling the respondents to permit the petitioner to establish an Aavin milk booth.

22. However, if and when any permission is granted, or a decision is made to permit the establishment of a tea shop or an Aavin milk booth, preference should certainly be given to differently abled persons, and among them, to the person with a greater degree of disability.

23. In view of the above, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be countenanced. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.