Doorstep ration okay, but not from central grains: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Thursday rejected the AAP government's claim that the doorstep ration delivery scheme stood approved after the council of ministers cleared it and that the LG had no role to play.
It clarified that the government was entitled to frame a scheme for doorstep delivery of foodgrains or ration to the beneficiaries under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). However, it has to be implemented from its own resources and not with the Centre's grains.
The bench also underlined that any such scheme framed by the government should comply with all the requirements of National Food Security Act (NFSA) and the orders issued under Essential Commodities Act (ECA). It said the doorstep delivery scheme, framed by the cabinet on March 24, 2021, does not comply with the provisions of the NFSA and the TPDS Order, 2015.
On the centrality of the LG's approval, the HC elaborated that the "scheme cannot be implemented and rolled out by the Delhi government since the lieutenant governor has expressed his difference of opinion and required that the same be referred for his decision to the President. The said scheme would necessarily have to be rolled out in the name of the LG while recording his approval. That has not been done."
The bench further observed that the decision of the council of ministers, headed by the CM, to roll out the scheme "is not and cannot be described as an executive action taken by or in the name of the lieutenant governor since he has expressed his disagreement, which stands unresolved, as it has not been placed before the President".
The court's verdict came on two pleas moved by Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers' Sangh and Delhi Ration Dealers' Union, challenging the scheme on the ground that it seeks to bypass the existing fair price shop (FPS) owners or dealers in the matter of distribution of foodgrains and wheat flour (atta) at the doorstep of the TPDS beneficiaries.
The judges agreed with another aspect flagged by the LG in his communication with the elected government - that the proposed scheme will only replace one set of human intervention with another i.e., the service providers and agents.
In its order, the bench saw merit in the charge of the fair price dealers' associations, who were the petitioners, that instead of tightening vigilance on them as per the NFSA mandate and redressing grievances of the beneficiaries, the government chose to introduce the scheme "with a view to bypass the existing FPS network and replace the same with another set of persons, who would be appointed as FPS owners and who would have much deeper pockets".
The bench also dealt with the claim of an NGO which sought implementation of the scheme on the ground that it will benefit the poor who have to stand in a queue before the fair price shops.
"It does not offend the right to dignity and privacy of any person, merely because the person may be required to queue up at the outlet. The outlet could be for anything or for any service. People queue up to buy medicines from a medical store; milk at the milk booth; bus, train and airline tickets at bus stations, railway stations and airports; cinema tickets at cinema houses; tickets for sporting and other entertainment events at the venues, so on and so forth," the bench observed.