LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     20 June 2010

Ration card not address proof: Govt

Dear All,

 

Ration Card, is a State Subject.  Every State has its own Rules and Procedures. 
The Chief Secretary of Maharashtra Govt.,  may have directed that Ration Card cannot be a "Proof of Address",  BUT typically,  it may be applicable only in Maharashtra.

 

FURTHER, since a rationing inspector initially inspects the premises (i.e. address) and verifies the occupants  "AT THE ADDRESS",  his inspection report, being a  "public document", is in itself a conclusive proof, of the person residing  "AT THE ADDRESS". 

 

Personally,  I think it is a fit matter to be filed at the HC, challenging such notification by the Chief Secretary.

 

Please post your comments & opinions, over here.

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

 

 

This was reported in  "Times of India,  dated 20 June'2010, Mumbai edition, page 01".
(read article, as reproduced below)

 

 

Ration card not address proof: Govt

 

 

Mumbai: The Congress-led Democratic Front government on Saturday said a ration card should not be considered as proof of address or residence. “Ration card is issued exclusively for obtaining essential commodities from shops under the public distribution system. Under no circumstances should it be considered as proof of address or residence. We have asked all heads of departments not to consider a ration card as proof of residence or address,’’ J P Dange, chief secretary, said.
 

 

   Over two crore ration card holders in Maharashtra have been using them as proof of address or residence for years.
 

 

   In an official circular, Dange said if authorities don’t consider a ration card as proof of address, the misuse of ration cards will come to an end. Besides department heads, the circular was sent to the regional passport officer, the transport commissioner, MTNL, RBI, oil firms, Cidco, Mhada, police and municipal commissioners and collectors.

 

 

‘Address on ration card never verified’
 

 

Mumbai: While ordering all wings of the government not to consider ration cards as proof of address or residence, chief secretary J P Dange said: “If an organisation is considering to use the ration card as proof of residence, it will have to take prior permission of the chief secretary.’’
 

 

   The food and civil supplies department found that the oil companies ask for ration card as proof of residence while issuing permit, MTNL and transport commissioner for registration of telephone and vehicle, higher and technical education department for admission, commissioner of police for court cases, Mhada and Cidco for allotment of flats, collectors for issuing caste certificates or voter cards, banks for issuing loans and income-tax department for PAN cards. “Prima facie, it appears that these organisations consider a ration card as proof of address or residence. Now we are making it clear that a ration card is issued as per provisions of the essential commodities Act for obtaining foodgrain from a PDS shop. As such, it can’t be used a proof of residence or address,’’ Dange said.
 

 

   When a ration card is issued, the food and civil supplies department inquires about the address of the person. “The department never asks if the residence if legal or otherwise, whether it’s a slum or a pucca house. Since food is a basic requirement, ration card is issued to him so that he can procure foodgrain from PDS shop. By and large, it is issued for a period ranging between three months to five years. Once a ration card is issued, the department has no machinery or network to check if the holder or the family stay at that address or not. Such checking is never done and not possible too. Further, it’s not binding on a card holder to come personally to procure the foodgrain. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it will be wrong to consider the ration card as proof of address or residence,’’ he explained.
 



 15 Replies

Satya Narayana Palukuru (Advocates & Mediators.)     20 June 2010

 

From the notes we can observe the issue raised in Maharastra and authorities are commenting  may based on the local conditions

As on the date subsidy ration is given by state of AP basing on verification  and this caed is taken as one

of source of verification of residence

The Recent process of sensus and government project  on perment   unique identification of citizen will solve this to great extent

satya Narayana @  satyampalukuru@yahoo.com

mahendrakumar (marketing)     20 June 2010

Ration card is a very common and simple document used by majority of Indians.


If it could be used for availing articles at subsidised rate , why dont we use it for as address proof?

the reason attributing to non acceptance of the same is that no proper verification regarding the address is made before issuing the same.

what verification and cross checking is done on the income status of a person other than his/her declaration for issuing the ration card.

as such i feel that the present system of accepting the ration card as an address proof to be continued till some other simpler documents available to all.

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     12 July 2010

Refreshing for consideration & further opinions & comments

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     12 July 2010

Sir, likewise nothing can be said a residence or identification proof. Ration card is valid even for passport/bank account also. At least the should tell which other document is "proof of residence", and every proof is being issued by the govt. authorities.


(Guest)

Dange's mental imbalance seems he is bitten by any mad dog.

NMP (nmp)     27 September 2010

Hemant ,  what are the other documents which can be actually used to prove actual stay or proof of residence.

Is this applicable only in Maharastra or in other state's too.

B.N.Rajamohamed (advocate / commissioner of oaths)     28 September 2010

The government of every state is aothorised to pass necessary laws and rules in view of the 7th schedule of the constitution of india on consideration of the prevailing circumstances and for protectiojn of the peace and security oif the state. If such a law or rules are passed it should not hit the basic structure of the constitution and the fundamental rights . If any law is violative of the fundamental rights , certainly that coulsd be challenged before the high court or the supremecourt of india in view of Art.226 and 32 respcetively.

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     06 October 2010

Refreshing for consideration or new members for further opinions & comments

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

Democratic Indian (n/a)     07 October 2010

The notification by the Chief Secretary also means:

1) Inspection reports stating that the premises (i.e. address) and the occupants  verified "AT THE ADDRESS", by rationing inspectors are all bogus, hence not credible as proof of address.

2) Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department & Government of Maharashtra has accepted they are incapable of stopping this menace, incapable of taking any action against its employees for issuing such bogus reports.

3) It also implies that Government of Maharashtra is contending that documents issued by its own deparments are not credible.


(Guest)
Originally posted by :Ram Samudre - DRF
"
Dange's mental imbalance seems he is bitten by any mad dog.
"

he is bitten by uncontrolled powers of the post and it is the lacuna in constitution of public service.  It is the duty of government to provide residence to citizens which maharashtra government never do and if people do arrange at their own that so maharashtra government never considers so where people should go?  So at least give these people the status of "REFUSIES" in our own country.  SHAME SHAME SHAME  


(Guest)
Originally posted by :Democratic Indian
"
The notification by the Chief Secretary also means:

1) Inspection reports stating that the premises (i.e. address) and the occupants  verified "AT THE ADDRESS", by rationing inspectors are all bogus, hence not credible as proof of address.

2) Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department & Government of Maharashtra has accepted they are incapable of stopping this menace, incapable of taking any action against its employees for issuing such bogus reports.

3) It also implies that Government of Maharashtra is contending that documents issued by its own deparments are not credible.
"

Dange is taking no action for his own people who have made these bogus documents, if so, it is the sign of that he is bitten by the uncontrolled powers of post for misuse against public interest.  If a chief secretary is making such contradictions and he is supported by the government so it is a fit case for use of art.356 to takeover the state by the president for application of constitutional rule.  All please contribute


(Guest)

 

PART II

CITIZENSHIP

5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.-

At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and-

(a) who was born in the territory of India; or

b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or

(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement,

shall be a citizen of India.

 

Part XVIII 

EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 

356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States.-

(1) If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor _304*** of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation-

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor _317*** or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts.

(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation.

(3) Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament:

Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.

(4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of _318[six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation]:

Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of _319[six months] from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years:

Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of _319[six months] and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People:

_320[Provided also that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to "three years" shall be construed as a reference to _321[five years].]

_322[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause (3) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such Proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless-

(a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and

(b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned:]

_323[Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab.]

 

Learned members please contribute


(Guest)

Can a citizen file a PIL in SC describing the position of rule in any state for action under Art.356? or can a citizen send a proposal to President with descripttions & documentary evidence? in case the government & executives are working against constitution and against large public interest?

 

Learned members pl suggest

Democratic Indian (n/a)     07 October 2010

1) Chief secretary's notification is about "proof of address", it is not about qualification/proof of citizenship. Merely on the basis of this notification, it cannot be argued that entire constitutional machinary of the state has failed.

 

2) For invoking Article 356, President has to be "satisfied" that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. president will be "satisfied" when PM recommends to President to invoke Article 356. When can PM make such recommendation is a very big question?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query