V.NARAYANASAMY Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition had been filed by V.Narayanasamy, the Chief Minister of Puducherry, seeking a declaration, declaring the action of the third respondent, namely, the Administrator of Puducherry, in differing with the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers of their Resolution No.2018/M.38/279 dated 07.06.2019 and referring the same to the first respondent, namely, the Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by the Secretary to Government, Union of India, through the file notings bearing Ref.235/LGS/2019 dated 05.09.2019 and the consequential decision of the first respondent advising the Government of the Union Territory of Puducherry to continue with the DBT (Cash) Scheme in lieu of distribution of free rice under the 'Puducherry Free Rice Scheme', communicated through the order of the second respondent, namely, the Advisor (UT), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi dated /12/2019 as illegal and consequently direct continuation of the policy of the Government of Puducherry as per the Puducherry Free Supply of Rice, Edible Oil and Other Essential Food Grains Every Month to All Ration Card Holders Rules, 2016.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition Mr.V.Narayanasamy, the Chief Minster of Puducherry, had stated that the Government of India had framed the Scheme Antyodaya Anna Yojana (hereinafter referred to as "AAY") in the year 2000 to provide to about 1 crore families living Below the Poverty Line (BPL) food grains such as Wheat and Rice at subsidized price. The scheme also envisaged the allocation of food grains to the concerned State/Union Territory. A separate Ration Card with the endorsement 'AAY' was to be issued. The families, who were to benefit under this scheme, had also been identified as: landless agricultural labourers, marginal farmers, rural artisans, craftsmen such as weavers, blacksmiths, slum dwellers, carpenters, as well as porters, coolies, rickshaw pullers, handcraft polishers, fruit and flower sellers, snake charmers, rag pickers, cobblers, destitute, widows, terminally ill persons, etc. Subsequently, the National Food Security Act 2013 was enacted and came into force on 10.09.2013 whereby persons belonging to priority households became entitled to receive a minimum of 5 kgs of food grains at subsidized prices, through a targeted Public Distribution System. The State Governments were given the authority to frame requisite guidelines.

(3.) In the affidavit, it was stated that in 2013, the Government of Puducherry took a decision to distribute 10 kgs of free rice to all Ration Card holders of Puducherry and Karaikal Regions. This was implemented from November 2013. This was extended to the Mahe and Yanam Regions from September 2015. Rules were also framed for the free supply of 10 kgs of Rice and 5 kgs of Wheat every month to all Ration Card holders by the Union Territory of Puducherry Rules 2015. This was also published in the Gazette on 28.05.2015, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 1/2015 Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs / 1159 dated 27.05.2015. The petitioner claimed that his party had promised to continue to supply of 20 kgs of free Rice to all Ration Card holders through Public Distribution System. Subsequently, in the Cabinet meeting held on 06.06.2016, the Cabinet decided to increase the supply of rice from 10 kgs to 20 kgs. This was implemented from August 2016 to all Ration Card holders. It was claimed that, this was implemented by the Government of Puducherry and not by the Government of India. In the meanwhile, the Government of India framed the Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules 2015. Under Rule 3, discretion was granted to the State Governments to either supply food grains, or credit cash to the accounts of the card holders. The petitioner claimed that he wrote to the Ministry of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, on 16.02.2018 seeking continuance of supply of food grains in kind. It is further claimed that the said Minister granted permission by a Demi Official letter dated 19.04.2018. The petitioner claimed that the third respondent directed a reduction in distribution of free rice from 20 kgs to 10 kgs in January 2018 for Above Poverty Line (hereinafter referred to as "APL") card holders and that Direct Benefit Transfer (hereinafter referred to as "DBT") as cash must be done. The petitioner further claimed that the matter was placed before the Cabinet for discussion on 07.06.2019. It was further claimed that the Cabinet deliberated all the relevant factors and by resolution No. 2018/M38/279 dated 07.06.2019 decided to continue the distribution of free rice, under the Free Rice Scheme, rather than transferring the equal amount of cash in the bank account of the beneficiaries. The said file was circulated among various departments and finally, it reached the third respondent. By notings in the file dated 05.09.2019, the third respondent differed with the view of the Cabinet and the Council of Ministers and referred the matter to the first respondent under the Proviso to Section 44 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, read with the Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry, 1963. The third respondent also directed that the rice should not be supplied in kind, but that the benefit must be extended only by DBT (Cash) method, pending the decision of the first respondent. The petitioner claimed that accordingly, cash is being transferred to the accounts of the beneficiaries. The first respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government, passed an order answering the reference that was made, by issuing an advisory to the Union Territory of Puducherry to continue with the DBT (Cash) method in lieu of distribution of free rice. This was communicated and received in the Chief Secretariat of the Government of Puducherry on 19.12.2019. The instant Writ Petition has been filed questioning the said order.