Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
V. Narayanasamy - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 821 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 991 of 2020
Decided On : 21-02-2020
For the Petitioner:ARL. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, R. Saravanan, Advocate
For the Respondents:G. Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General assisted by K. Srinivasamurthy, A.L. Somayaji, Arvind Datar, Senior Counsels, V. Chandrasekaran, T.R. Rajagopalan assisted by Ravichandran, Advocates
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 - Section 44 - Essential Food Grains Every Month to All Ration Card Holders Rules, 2016 - Third respondent claim - appointment as a Lieutenant Governor - Petition had been filed by Chief Minister seeking a declaration declaring action of third respondent namely Advisor (UT) Puducherry in differing with aid and advise of Council of Ministers of their Resolution and referring same to first respondent Ministry of Home Affairs represented Secretary to Government Union of India through file nothings bearing consequential decision of first respondent advising Government of Union Territory to continue with DBT (Cash) Scheme lieu of distribution of free rice Free Rice Scheme communicated through the order second respondent Advisor (UT) Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi as illegal and consequently direct continuation of policy of Government of Puducherry –Held, Parliament to enact a law for Union Territory so as create legislature or Council of Ministers or both - In creating legislature Parliament is left free determine whether the legislative body should be entirely elected or should consist of certain number of nominated legislators - Parliament in its legislative power may decide either to create a legislature or a Council of Ministers - Whether to do so in first place is left its discretion - Whether one or both of such bodies should be created is also left to the legislative authority of Parliament Government of Union Territories Act Administrator to act on advise of Council of Ministers - When advise is given by Council of Ministers and Administrator prefers to differ from that advise then advise and the difference in opinion must referred to President for decision - That decision is conveyed by President through Ministry of Home Affairs - When that decision is conveyed it is binding Administrator - Since it binding on Administrator - grant approval only for decision given by President - That decisions could either be in concurrence with advise given by Council of Ministers or in concurrence with opinion of Administrator - Even if President concur with advise of Council of Ministers Administrator is bound to act on such advise even though Administrator had initially deferred from such advice - In this case President has concurred with opinion of Administrator - Therefore Administrator can give financial sanction as provided Government of Union Territories Act only for Appropriation of Funds out of Consolidated Fund of Union Territory only in accordance with decision of President of India - Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of declaration declaring the action of the third respondent in differing with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers by the Resolution No.2018/M.38/279 dated 07.06.2019 and referring the same to the first respondent vide the file nothings bearing Ref.235/LGS/2019 dated 05.09.2019 and the consequential decision of the first respondent advising the Government of 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 dated /12/2019 bearing Ref. Nil as illegal and ultravires 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 in kind.)
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 Advisor (UT), 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 nothings 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 Minister 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.
