The High Court has said that the decision of COM to launch a doorstep ration delivery scheme headed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is not an executive action taken by LG or in his name as he has expressed his disagreement, which is unresolved as it is not before the President.
The High Court has ruled that the AAP government’s doorstep ration distribution scheme – CM House Ration Scheme – cannot be implemented in its current form as it has not been approved by LG.
It challenged the scheme on the basis of two petitions filed by the petitioners, Delhi Government Ration Dealers Association and Delhi Ration Dealers Union, ruling that it wanted to bypass existing Fair Price Shop (FPS) owners or dealers in distribution of foodgrains. And wheat flour at the doorsteps of the beneficiaries under TPDS.
“The final decision will be with the President on differences of opinion and the said decision will give priority to the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor, who will abide by the said final decision,” said a bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh.
It said the COM, led by the chief minister, was obliged to inform LG of its decisions and resolutions, including any such plan or proposal, so that it could examine it and decide whether it disagreed with it. Any such scheme.
“When a decision of the CM led by the Chief Minister is put before LG for its approval, he will be aware of the decision of the Supreme Court … and will make his decision to differentiate his opinion, if any, in the light of the aforesaid judgment,” it said. Done.
It added that if LG expressed its disagreement with its COM, it could either ask the chief minister to send the matter to the president for its decision, or he could send the matter to the president for his own decision.
“LG should not operate mechanically without proper application of its mind, so that every decision of the COM should be reported to the President.
“There should be a valid argument for the difference of opinion between CoM and LG, and it should not be resorted to merely to hinder the implementation of CoM’s decision, but it should be based on positive constructivism, and deep prudence and fairness.”
“At the same time, it is incumbent upon the COM to comply with all their decisions to enable LG to exercise its powers under Article 239AA (4) of the Constitution and its terms,” the bench said. .
The Delhi government defended the doorstep ration delivery scheme, saying it was for the poor who were threatened by fair price shop (FPS) owners to opt-out of home delivery mode or would not be given rations.
The Center objected, saying the court should not allow any state government to interfere in the structure of the National Food Security Act (NFSA) and destroy its architecture and is an integral part of the FPS Act.