• Contempt order 22/2026 Telangana Highcourt and Hearing in front of the Transport Commissioner

Respected Learned Members,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61643212/
Please download the CC order from the above link for a better understanding of my case for those of you who have not followed my earlier questions.

I seek your valuable legal opinion please.

My wife, Dr. Naima Fathima, has 90% benchmark locomotor disability. Pursuant to the High Court's direction for fresh consideration, the Transport Commissioner, Telangana, recently gave us a personal hearing regarding life tax exemption for a Divyangjan-owned non-adapted vehicle.
During the hearing, the Commissioner stated that he does not have the power to amend the Government policy, but he is considering whether he can grant individual relief to my wife. He also said he would consider whether to recommend a policy amendment to the Government.

During the hearing, I submitted that I am not interested in a personal benefit alone. My concern is that if only my wife receives the exemption, every other similarly placed Divyangjan may still have to approach the authorities and then the High Court individually for the same benefit.
My vehicle is already nearly two years old and has run about 70,000 km. In another three years, I may need to purchase another vehicle. If I accept only an individual exemption now, I may again have to undergo the same litigation and expenses for the next vehicle.

I seek guidance on the following:

Should I wait for the Commissioner's order or immediately request him to recommend a policy amendment?

If he grants only individual relief, should I accept it or continue pursuing a policy change?

If I accept individual relief, is there any realistic possibility of a future policy amendment?

If he grants individual relief, under what statutory provision or legal authority can he do so, when he says he has no power to amend the policy?

If such discretion exists, why was it not exercised when I first represented the matter on 20 September 2024, before filing the writ petition? Two years of litigation, legal expenses, insurance issues, and repeated representations could have been avoided.

Would granting relief only to my wife, while denying the same benefit to other similarly placed Divyangjan, raise concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the RPwD Act?

If this becomes the practice, does it mean every eligible Divyangjan in Telangana must first litigate individually to receive the same benefit? Would that be consistent with the objectives of the RPwD Act and the MoRTH policy?

I would be grateful for your guidance on the most appropriate legal course before the Commissioner passes his final order.