DILIP VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition had been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner No. 1 is an Hon 'ble Member of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioners complain that there are malpractices in the working of the Public Distribution System (PDS). The petitioners submit to allege on the details of the manner in which foodgrains meant for the ration shops have been misutifised by the dealers and purchasers alike.

(2.) ON the issue on which the petitioners contend, there have been questions in the Assembly. The contention of the petitioners is that siphoning and loot of the subsidised foodgrains is in the vicinity of 1000 crores. The Court is borrowing the petitioners expression as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the petition.

(3.) IN so far as the High Court is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that the issues raised by the petitioners may need to be probed, yet, the High Court ought not to be monitoring these matters. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, if a matter has engaged the attention of State Legislature a parallel proceedings ought not to be going on at the High Court as judicial proceedings. Secondly, if the purpose of monitoring action or supervision is virtually an impossiblity, and the circumstances present such a situation in the present case, then the High Court ought not to be taking such a venture. Examining 60 lacs ration cards and over 3000 ration shops is not an assignment which ought to be undertaken on a public interest litigation. If it were a matter of a solitary ration shop or of a ration card where the fundamental right of a ration card holder may have been involved that would have been another matter.