High Court calls for Delhi government’s position on woman’s plea for not issuing 8-year ration card
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday called on the Delhi government’s position on a woman’s plea for not issuing a ration card over an 8-year period despite her repeated representations to the Authority.
Judge Rekha Palli, while releasing the case for a new hearing on October 25, found it appropriate to seek instructions from the Delhi government before filing responses on the case.
The woman, claiming to be a person falling under the category below the poverty line, had approached the Court with a complaint that despite her request dated September 25, 2013, no ration card had been issued to her for 8 years.
Her lawyer argued that an application was also submitted in 2018 and being a person under the BPL category, she had no source of income to support herself.
Lawyer Gautam Narayan, representing the government of Delhi, argued that the amount of food grains allowed to each state and territory in the Union depends on the formula developed by the central government.
In addition, he added that during the entire period, the Applicant was not deprived or deprived of rations and in fact received free subsidized food grains.
“You can’t say you won’t give. It’s ongoing but for how many years ?, noted Justice Palli.
Narayan also reported that after the introduction of the National Food Safety Law in 2013, each person is issued new smart cards based on the details of the Aadhar card.
However, he argued that the Applicant submitted the receipt of the Aadhar card application and not the Aadhar card itself as a result of which the delay occurred.
“You are right to say that this will be done on a first come and first served basis, but three years is enough” said the court.
“This is not political speech here. I just want to know when will you issue the ration card. You are not going to sit on it. Three years have passed,” added the court.
“Mr. Gautam Narayan appearing for Respondents 2 to 4 on notice is asking for time for instructions. Given the nature of the relief sought, this Court considers it appropriate to first order respondent # 2 to obtain directions as to why the claim has been pending for 8 years “, the court said when the case was released for a new hearing on Oct. 25.
Title: Shanti Devi c. Indian union