42-Year-Old Cycle Repairer To Get Scheme Shop Within 45 Days, Chhattisgarh HC Waives Age Limit Subject To Other Conditions

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste person over 40 years of age, said he had earned his livelihood by repairing bicycles from a handcart since 2012–13.

After the Municipal Council removed his business, he sought consideration for a vacant shop constructed under the Mukhyamantri Swavalamban Yojana.

He alleged that shops were being allotted to others without a transparent process and sought consideration of his claim.

Respondent No. 4 opposed the claim on the ground that the petitioner exceeded the scheme’s age limit; the State submitted that eligibility should be assessed under the scheme’s conditions.

Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practise a profession or carry on an occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

The Court also relied on Article 14’s protection against arbitrary State action and the principles of reasonable classification and rational nexus stated in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar.

It referred to Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. and Others, concerning equality and the constitutional importance of livelihood, and to Sudip Sakar v. State of West Bengal and Ors., which discussed the review of arbitrary age restrictions and their compatibility with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

The Court’s governing proposition was that an age criterion that excludes an otherwise eligible person from a livelihood opportunity must be reconsidered in light of constitutional protections.

The Court treated the petitioner’s bicycle-repair work as a small occupation through which he earned his livelihood and viewed access to a shop as facilitating that occupation.

Although the scheme prescribed an age criterion and the petitioner was above 40, the Court concluded that the age restriction should not, by itself, defeat his claim, particularly where he was willing to comply with the remaining conditions.

Relying on the constitutional principles and authorities it cited, the Court directed allotment subject to the other scheme conditions, effectively excepting the petitioner from the age condition.

The respondents were directed to provide and allot the petitioner a suitable vacant shop under the Mukhyamantri Swavalamban Yojana within 45 days of receiving the order, subject to compliance with all prescribed conditions except the age criterion.