Ration card not reliable address proof: Delhi High Court

A ration card is not a reliable proof of address since its scope is limited to distribution of food items by way of public distribution system, the Delhi High Court recently said. [Mohammad Hakim and Anr v DDA].Based on the definition of 'ration card' in National Food Security Act, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh determined that a ration card did not amount to a proof of residence.."The term “Ration Card” has been defined in Section 2 (16) of National Food Security Act, 2013 as a document issued under an order or authority of the State Government for the purchase of essential commodities from the fair price shops under the Targeted Public Distribution System. Hence, as per the definition of the Ration Card, the intent of issuing the same is that it aims to distribute the essential food items by way of the fair price shops. Therefore, it does not amount to become an identity proof of residence for any Ration Card holder," the Court order dated February 29 stated.Hence, alternative accommodation cannot be denied to persons citing non-possession of rations card. .The Court was hearing pleas by three erstwhile residents of Delhi's Kathputali colony seeking alternative accommodation under the rehabilitation scheme following the re-development of the area.The petitioners' claim for rehabilitation was rejected by the respondent Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC). Aggrieved, they moved the appellate authority which set aside the EDC order after finding that the EDC had wrongly rejected the petitioners' claims.However, Nodal Officer of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) took suo motu cognisance of these orders and reversed them via a letter, citing the petitioners' non possession of ration cards. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court.Pursuant to the filing of the petition, the case of one of the petitioners was re-examined and reviewed by DDA which found that his case was inadvertently recommended for 'non acceptance' by the Competent Authority due to mixing of his records with other 62 cases. Therefore, the DDA rectified its mistake by withdrawing the assailed letter and granting the relief as sought by the petitioner..The other two petitioners challenged the Nodal Officer's jurisdiction to reverse the appellate authority's order. They informed the Court that they had run from pillar to post to issue a ration card but were unsuccessful due to no fault of their own. The petitioners underlined that as per the rehabilitation policy of 2015, the respondent was duty bound to rehabilitate each eligible jhuggi dweller. Further, they underlined that the rehabilitation policy did not mandate having a ration card before being amended abruptly in 2015. .The DDA, on the other hand, highlighted that as per the policy of 2015, it was mandatory for dwellers of the first floor of the jhuggis to furnish a separate ration card as proof that they were a separate family unit.Further, it submitted that the orders of the appellate authority allowing the claims of the petitioners was not accepted by the competent authority of the DDA and therefore, the Nodal Officer the took suo motu cognizance of the situation and passed the impugned orders.Accordingly, DDA sought dismissal of the petitions..The Court noted that the policy specifically states that if different families reside on separate floors with separate ration cards issued before January 1, 2015, each family may be considered for a dwelling unit..Thereafter, based on the definition of 'ration card' in the National Food Security Act, the Court determined that it could not be used as proof of address. Moreover, there was no mechanism set up by the authority issuing ration cards to ensure that the holder of the ration card is staying at the address mentioned in the ration card, the Court observed."The aim of the ration card is to ensure that the citizens of this country are provided foodgrains at a reasonable price. Hence, it is not reliable source of proof of address since the scope is limited to distribution of food items by way of Public Distribution System," it added.Therefore, the Court held that DDA had wrongly relied on ration cards as proof of address. .Further, the Court noted that ration cards have a State-wise ceiling of number of eligible households for which the ration card can be issued by various States.It took the view that mere non-issuance of a ration card cannot be a ground for denial of the alternative allotment to the petitioners. "The respondent should have introspected into the issue and accordingly, should have taken step to alleviate issues faced by the poor dwellers of the Kathputali Colony," the Court said.Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the letters of the Nodal Officer that reversed the appellate authority's decision. It directed DDA to allot accommodation to the petitioners provided they produce, apart from a ration card, documents as mentioned in the 2015 policy. .The petitioners were represented by advocates Sumayya Khatoon and Kamal Mehta.DDA was represented by standing counsel Shobhana Takiar along with advocates Rajiv Shukla, Shivani Kapoor, Sahaj Karan Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Kuljeet Singh..[Read Order]