Dear Sir/Madam,

You should file a brief written submission before the Transport Commissioner requesting both individual exemption and a recommendation to the State Government for a uniform policy amendment. Thereafter, await the reasoned order directed by the High Court.

If individual relief is granted, you may accept it without prejudice to your right to pursue a general policy change. The power under Section 9(1)(a) of the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act primarily rests with the State Government; the Commissioner can exercise it only if specifically authorised or delegated.

A personal exemption will not automatically benefit other Divyangjan. If the final order ignores the broader equality and non-discrimination issues under Article 14 and Section 3 of the RPwD Act, a separate representation to the Government or further writ remedy may be considered.

Advocate Saurabh Agrawal

You should take individual exemption and request commissioner to recommend policy amendment t 

2) accept it 

3) it would set a precedent .further if commissioner recommends policy change to govt it is helpful for other disabled persons 

4) it does not mean every person has to litigate only if relief is denied woukd they have to go to court 

Let Commissioner's order be passed. Once it is done then you can file appropriate proceeding like fresh writ petition or contempt proceeding. 

The court ordered a broader examination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 and the MoRTH 2023 guidelines.

If you haven't already, submit a written memorandum summarizing your oral submissions. Explicitly state that under the High Court’s  mandate in paragraph 10, the Commissioner is legally required to peruse the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act along with the RPwD Act. Request him to reflect this systemic change in his final order. Do not wait passively; put your  demands on record before he inks the final decision.

If the Commissioner grants individual relief, take it. Do not reject a hard-fought victory that immediately saves you Rs. 1,89,703/- and resolves your burning insurance and registration crises.

However, accept it by filing a formal letter stating you are accepting it without prejudice to your right to challenge the systemic exclusion of other Divyangjan. You can then use this very order as a legal precedent in the main Writ Petition (which is likely still pending or can be refiled as a Public Interest Litigation) to show that the department has recognized the principle, but is applying it discriminatorily.

In fact, individual exemptions often serve as the legal "thin end of the wedge." Once a department is forced to grant 2 or 3 individual exemptions due to court pressure, they realize that processing custom exemptions on a case-by-case basis is administratively unsustainable.

If the Order is Individual, take it, register the vehicle, fix the insurance, and then hand the order over to a disability rights group or your Senior Counsel to file a broader PIL seeking a systemic amendment to G.O.Ms.No.351 and G.O.Ms.No.12 for the entire State of Telangana.

You have fought an incredibly strategic battle so far, and the High Court judgment has given you immense leverage. Secure your immediate relief first, but keep your legal boots laced for the broader policy fight.

You can only make representation 

it is for transport commissioner to consider and make recommendations 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Yes, the submission is appropriate, but request individual exemption as the primary relief and policy amendment only as an additional recommendation. The High Court has directed fresh consideration and a reasoned order after examining the RPwD Act, Central guidelines, State taxation law and relevant Government Orders.

Add that, if the Commissioner lacks power to grant a general exemption, your representation may be forwarded to the State Government under Section 9(1)(a). Any individual relief may be accepted “without prejudice” to the request for uniform policy benefits.

Submit it immediately with acknowledgment and then await the final order. Avoid lengthy allegations or contempt warnings at this stage.

Advocate Saurabh Agrawal

Your proposed representation is well drafted and adopts the correct tone. I would, however, make it slightly more strategic. At this stage, you should not appear to be rejecting individual relief. Instead, request the Commissioner to (i) grant relief in your wife's case in compliance with the High Court's directions, and (ii) simultaneously recommend a policy amendment to the Government so that similarly placed persons with benchmark disabilities are not compelled to litigate repeatedly.

A suggested redraft is:

Respected Sir,

I sincerely thank Your Goodself for granting a personal hearing pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.

During the course of the hearing, I respectfully submitted that my request is not confined to obtaining relief only for my wife, Dr. Naima Fathima, who is a person with 90% benchmark locomotor disability. While I would be grateful for the relief sought in her individual case, my larger concern is that all similarly situated Divyangjan should receive the benefit uniformly without being compelled to approach the High Court in each individual case.

The object of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, read with the notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 03.02.2023, is to facilitate equal access and non-discriminatory treatment. If relief is granted only on a case-to-case basis after litigation, it would inevitably result in similarly placed persons being forced to undertake avoidable legal proceedings, which would be inconsistent with the spirit of the RPwD Act and Article 14 of the Constitution.

My vehicle is already about two years old and has covered nearly 70,000 kilometres. The delay in consideration has resulted in avoidable litigation, financial burden and practical difficulties relating to registration and insurance, all of which could have been avoided had appropriate relief been granted on my initial representation dated 20.09.2024.

I therefore most respectfully request Your Goodself to kindly pass a reasoned order in my wife's case in accordance with law and, at the same time, recommend to the Government that the existing policy be suitably amended or clarified so that all eligible persons with benchmark disabilities owning non-adapted vehicles receive the benefit uniformly without the necessity of approaching the Courts individually.

I shall remain grateful if the final order also considers the applicability of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the MoRTH Notification dated 03.02.2023, and the observations and directions contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.

Yours faithfully,
Prof. Mohammed Eliyas
(On behalf of Dr. Naima Fathima)

Legally, your strategy should be:

• Accept individual relief if granted. There is no disadvantage in doing so.
• Simultaneously seek a recommendation for a policy amendment. The Commissioner may not have the power to amend the policy himself, but he can recommend such an amendment to the Government.
• If the Government thereafter continues to deny the benefit to other similarly placed persons despite the Commissioner's recommendation, that issue can independently be challenged under Article 14 and the RPwD Act.

I would not advise making the representation sound as though you are willing to forgo your wife's relief in pursuit of a larger policy change. Secure the individual relief first, while requesting systemic reform. That approach is legally stronger and more likely to receive a favourable response from the Commissioner.

This draft appears well-balanced. It is formatted in a proper legal manner , and pulls no punches regarding the systemic issue. It perfectly captures the mandate given by Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka in paragraph 10 of the Contempt Case order, where the Court specifically ordered the authority to look beyond the narrow state G.O.s and consider the RPwD Act and MoRTH guidelines.

You may edit as follows;

You may use the phrase "without prejudice" when discussing the individual relief. This ensures that if they give you individual relief, you haven't waived your right to argue for a broader policy change later.

You may make it clear that this note is an official submission to be read into the record of the fresh consideration ordered by the High Court.

You may make a reference about the exact date of contempt order too in your letter. 

Do not just email it. Hand-deliver it to the Transport Commissioner’s inward/received section immediately. Get a stamped "Received Copy" with the date and signature on a duplicate copy.

If the Commissioner passes a negative order or an unsatisfactory individual order despite this note, this stamped document becomes a substantial evidence to support your argument before high court in this regard. 

In this case you need to file representation before transport ministry and then file PIL for such directions 

you have got an excellent order 

2) you have been granted life tax exemption 

3) recommendation have been made to govt to extend it to 

vehicles owned by persons with benchmark disability under the "Divyangjan" ownership category and driven through a licensed drive

in government it takes time for decisions to be made 

2) it willtake at least a year for any decision by govt 

This is a great legal victor not just for your family, but for every single person with benchmark disabilities in the State of Telangana.

The Transport Commissioner’s order is exceptionally well-reasoned. By explicitly recording that the decades-old state framework created an "anomaly" that punished those with severe disabilities (both lower limbs) compared to those with lesser disabilities (left leg only), the Commissioner has officially conceded your core legal argument under Article 14 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

Commissioner granted full individual tax exemption for Kia Carens AND made a formal recommendation to amend State policy for all Divyangjan.

Your next step is the execution of the order.

If you wish to ensure other Divyangjan benefit quickly, you or a disability advocacy NGO can file a representation before the Principal Secretary referencing this exact order, urging the Government to issue the amendment notification expeditiously.

Your persistence, strategic patience, and willingness to fight all the way through Contempt Case 22/2026 have produced a landmark administrative order that will reshape disability rights policy in Telangana for years to come.

You should wait no more than 60 to 90 days for the State Government to act on the Transport Commissioner's recommendation before moving the High Court for systemic enforcement.

In your pending Writ Petition before the High Court, do not withdraw the petition.

Pray before the High Court: "While the individual grievance of the Petitioner stands resolved by the Transport Commissioner's order, the Commissioner himself has conceded that the existing G.O.Ms.No.351 violates Article 14 and the RPwD Act, 2016. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 (State of Telangana) to notify the policy amendment within 4 to 6 weeks for all benchmark Divyangjan."

As the Commissioner explicitly recorded that the 1978 policy creates an unconstitutional anomaly violating Article 14 and the RPwD Act, the State Government no longer has a legal defense. The High Court can easily use its writ jurisdiction to put the State on a strict 4-week deadline to issue the new G.O., effectively turning your individual victory into a binding general exemption for all Divyangjan across Telangana.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Do not wait indefinitely. Submit the Commissioner’s order to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, and request a decision on the policy recommendation within four weeks.

If no decision is taken within 6–8 weeks, move an appropriate application in the pending writ petition seeking a time-bound decision by the Government. The Court may direct policy reconsideration, but ordinarily cannot itself frame the exemption policy.

You may accept the individual exemption without prejudice to your claim for uniform relief to similarly placed Divyangjan.

Advocate Saurabh Agrawal

it is necessary to  refelct   Divyangjan  in Rc 

2) you may not get toll exemption 

3) it amounts to incpmplete implementaion of Hc order 

4) you need revised RC

Without the specific "Divyangjan" notation on the face of the physical Registration Certificate (RC), you may face practical hurdles in claiming statutory benefits. Third-party authorities (toll operators, insurance providers, local enforcement, traffic police) rely solely on the physical RC card or the mParivahan app display. Lacking the explicit "Divyangjan" tag on the printed document deprives you of the practical benefit of that status.

An ordinary private vehicle RC causes instant automated rejection on the IHMCL/NHAI portal. Thus, the department's failure to print the correct tag directly violates MoRTH Circular No. RT-11036/57/2020-MVL (dated Feb 3, 2023), which mandated states to reflect "Divyangjan" ownership on the RC specifically to enable benefits like toll exemptions.

The RTO's backend entry—"Divyangjan (Availing GST Concession)"—is factually wrong (since no GST concession was availed) and incorrectly mapped in the local software schema, preventing it from rendering correctly on the printed Smart Card RC or mParivahan display.

Substantial compliance in spirit without complete, accurate execution in form does not constitute full compliance with High Court orders. Issuing an incorrect internal classification ("Availing GST Concession") and printing a generic private vehicle RC amounts to partial, defective, or colorable compliance, which courts treat as non-compliance under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Waiting 7–10 business days after sending formal representations to the Transport Commissioner is a prudent, well-grounded approach. If they do not rectify the record, you may file a fresh contempt petition seeking direction l. You may state that the respondents offered "paper compliance" or "defective compliance" by misclassifying the vehicle in the backend and issuing a standard private RC, frustrating the court's order and MoRTH directives.

Under Public Law remedies (Article 226) and the Court's inherent powers under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court can award exemplary costs/compensation for harassment, administrative malice, loss of statutory toll benefits, and mental agony suffered due to willful non-compliance.

Before approaching high court once again, you may issue a final legal notice to the Transport Commissioner, attaching the B-Extract showing the erroneous backend entry and citing MoRTH circular dated 03.02.2023, giving 7 days time for compliance of the high court orders in the true sense.

PIL is only solution