Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 187 (MP)

Ami Prabal v. Union of India

2012-02-09

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. This pro bono publico petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is practicing Advocate in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is in regard to inadequate supply and allotment of foodgrains to the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Union of India due to which the BPL card holders are not getting 35 kgs. foodgrains per month fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner further claimed that due to malnutrition, some children have died in Shivpuri district and proper care has not been taken by the administration in this regard. The petitioner has further submitted that in spite of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government and the Union of India have not taken proper care to provide foodgrains to the poor sections of the society and also due to inadequate measures, the foodgrains are being rotten. 2. A petition is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No.196/2001 (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (UOI) and others), and the Hon’ble Supreme Court seized the matter, hence, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made a limited prayer in this petition in regard to grant of relief of allocation of adequate quantity of foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System to the BPL and AAY card holders of the State of Madhya Pradesh, particularly the Districts under the jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench. 3. The respondent No.4-State of Madhya Pradesh in its reply submitted that there are 68.71 lacs BPL and Antyodaya Ration card holders in the State and accordingly it has been distributing the foodgrains in the State under Targeted Public Distribution System. Due to allotment of less quantity of foodgrains, the State is able to distribute only 20 kgs. foodgrains per BPL card holder, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that BPL and AAY card holders are entitled to receive foodgrains of 35 kgs. per month. 4. In accordance with the return of State, the State Government had received following foodgrains in the year 2010-11 : Sl. Name of Scheme Number of Allotment in (MT) No. Ration Card Wheat Rice 1. Antyoday Ann 1581565 560196 104064 Yojna 2. BPL Yojna 5290271 964500 389789 3. per month. 4. In accordance with the return of State, the State Government had received following foodgrains in the year 2010-11 : Sl. Name of Scheme Number of Allotment in (MT) No. Ration Card Wheat Rice 1. Antyoday Ann 1581565 560196 104064 Yojna 2. BPL Yojna 5290271 964500 389789 3. AAY Ration Card 7897216 803232 33468 The State Government further submitted that there was bumper crops of foodgrains in the State and it procured 32.98 lacs MT Wheat at support price in the year 2010-11, however, the State could not distribute the foodgrains directly to the people because the allotment is to be made by the Union of India under the Targeted Public Distribution System, if Union of India allows the State of M.P. to distribute the procured foodgrains to the residents of the State then it is ready to distribute the foodgrains procured by it to the people through Public Distribution System. The State Government submitted a proposal to the Union of India under Storage Guarantee Scheme for storage of 9.4 lacs MT foodgrains but the Union of India had given sanction for storage of 4.35 lacs MT and 5 lacs MT of Wheat procured during Rabi season in the year 2010-11. The State further pleaded that because the Union of India is not allowing to transfer of remaining quantity of wheat nor allowing distribution in the open market, hence, there would be a problem of storage of foodgrains to the State in the year 2011-12. The State of M.P. made a prayer to the Court that a direction be issued to the Union of India that it shall allot the foodgrains to the State of M.P. on the basis of number of BPL/AAY Ration card holders of 68.71 lacs in place of 41.25 lacs. 5. The Union of India in its reply submitted that the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) was introduced in June 1997 and allocation of foodgrains to the BPL card holders was increased from 10 kgs./family to 20 kgs./family per month from April, 2000. It was further revised upwards to 25 kgs./family per month from July, 2001 and to 35 kgs./family per month from April, 2002 and the allocation to AAY families had also been increased. It was further revised upwards to 25 kgs./family per month from July, 2001 and to 35 kgs./family per month from April, 2002 and the allocation to AAY families had also been increased. It has further been stated by the Union of India in its reply that it makes allocation of foodgrains to the families under TPDS on the basis of 1993-94 poverty estimates of Planning Commission and March 2000 population estimates of Registrar General of India or the number of ration cards issued, whichever is less. 6. This Court vide order dated 10.8.2011 directed the Union of India to file affidavit in regard to procedure adopted by the Union of India for fixing the numbers of BPL and AAY card holders in the State of M.P. i.e. 41.25 lacs. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, Mr. Nitish K. Sinha, Director, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Gwalior of India filed his affidavit and deposed that the Government of India makes allocation of foodgrains under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) on the basis of 1993-94 poverty estimates of Planning Commission and March 2000 population estimates of Registrar General of India. He further stated that in accordance with the estimates of the Registrar General of India, the projected population in the year 2000 in the State of Madhya Pradesh was 548.22 lacs and on the basis of poverty estimates of Planning Commission 42.52% of population in the State of Madhya Pradesh was below poverty line, hence, number of households in the State of M.P. stands at 41.25 lacs and accordingly the Union of India makes allocation of foodgrains to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant pleading of the affidavit are as under : “1. Government of India makes allocations of foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) on the basis of 1993-94 poverty estimates of Planning Commission and March 2000 population estimates of Registrar General of India or the number of families actually identified and ration cards issued, whichever is less. Government of India has been making allocation for all the accepted number of 6.52 crore Below Poverty Line (PBL) families including about 2.44 crore Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) families @ 35 kgs. per family per month. Presently, in the case of Above Poverty Line (APL) families, allocations ranging from 15 kgs. to 35 kgs. Government of India has been making allocation for all the accepted number of 6.52 crore Below Poverty Line (PBL) families including about 2.44 crore Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) families @ 35 kgs. per family per month. Presently, in the case of Above Poverty Line (APL) families, allocations ranging from 15 kgs. to 35 kgs. per family per month are being made, based on availability of foodgrains in the Central Pool and the past offtake by the State/UTs. Additional allocation of foodgrains is also made from time to time depending upon the availability of stocks and requirements/requests received from States/UTs. 2. xxxx xxxx 3. xxxx xxxx 4. That, as per Registrar General of India’s estimates, the projected population in 2000 in State of Madhya Pradesh was 548.22 lacs and the 1993-94 poverty estimates of Planning Commission indicated 42.52% of population as Below Poverty Line. The total number of BPL households in the State of M.P. thus stands at 41.25 lacs with 5.65 being the average households size.” 7. It has further been stated that the Union Ministry of Rural Development is coordinating the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), 2011. In the aforesaid survey all rural households in the country be surveyed to collect information on a number of socio-economic indicators and the Government of India would take into consideration the dates of Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), 2011 and it will ensure that no poor or deprived household will be excluded from coverage under different Government programmes and schemes. The relevant pleadings are as under : “10. It is further submitted that the Union Ministry of Rural Development is coordinating the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), 2011 which is surveying all rural households in the country to collect information on a number of socio-economic indicators. This ie being carried out in association with the Office of the Registrar General of India and is expected to be completed by January, 2012. Government of India will take into account multiple dimensions of deprivation based on the indicators that are being collected through the SECC, 2011 for arriving at specific entitlements that rural households will receive under various Central Government programmes and schemes. Government of India will take into account multiple dimensions of deprivation based on the indicators that are being collected through the SECC, 2011 for arriving at specific entitlements that rural households will receive under various Central Government programmes and schemes. The eligibility and entitlements of rural households in the country for different Central Government programmes and schemes will be determined after the SECC, 2011, survey results are available and have been analysed.The Union Ministry of Rural Development and the Planning Commission will consult with States, experts and civil society organizations to arrive at a consensus on the methodology by the time SECC 2011 is completed. This methodology will seek to ensure that no poor or deprived household will be excluded from coverage under different Government programmes and schemes.” 8. The Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh in its letter dated 25th August, 2007 written to the Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has stated that the estimate of Union of India that there are only 41.25 lacs BPL card holders in the State of M.P. is not proper and actually 52.04 lacs BPL card holders were identified in the State of M.P. The number was fixed after adopting a proper methodology and in accordance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the procedure of addition and deletion of the names of the BPL card holders was going on.The Principal Secretary further wrote letter to the Joint Secretary, Food and Public Distribution Department, Government of India, New Delhi on 6.11.2007 and 7.12.2007 in regard to proper allotment of foodgrains to the BPL card holders to the State of M.P. The Chief Minister, State of Madhya Pradesh also wrote a letter on 31.12.2007 in regard to allocation of foodgrains to Mr. Sharad Pawar, Union Minister for Agriculture, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, New Delhi in regard to number of BPL card holders fixed by the State Government. The relevant contents are as under : “2. I would like to bring to your kind notice that because of scanty rains, and low level of APL allocation to Madhya Pradesh, there is a real danger of a crisis in availability of wheat in the open market, which will also lead to rise in prices, besides having other social consequences. The relevant contents are as under : “2. I would like to bring to your kind notice that because of scanty rains, and low level of APL allocation to Madhya Pradesh, there is a real danger of a crisis in availability of wheat in the open market, which will also lead to rise in prices, besides having other social consequences. The number of BPL families identified in Madhya Pradesh and issued ration cards is about 60 lacs, whereas the Government of India have been allotting foodgrains to the State only for 41.25 lacs families. As a result, the per capita availability of foodgrains for our BPL family is already much below the norms of 35 kgs. per family per month prescribed by the Supreme Court and laid down in the TDPS guidelines. Therefore, the non-availability of adequate wheat for APL families will definitely impact adversely on the prices and availability of foodgrains. 3. I would also like to mention that the monthly allocation of foodgrains to other similarly large States is far higher.In the first 6 months of 2007-08, for example, Tamil Nadu has been allocated 14.50 lacs MTs of foodgrains, Andhra Pradesh 11.37 lacs MTs, Karnataka 6.90 lacs MTs and West Bengal 3.60 lacs MTs etc. Whereas for the same period, the total allocation for Madhya Pradesh has been only 66,220 MT. Similarly, per capita allocations to other States like Bihar and U.P., which have the largest number of poor people has also been low.” The correspondence further continued in the year 2009. 9. From the aforesaid correspondence, it is clear that the State Government has been distributing foodgrains of 20 kgs. per month per BPL and APL card holders. Undisputed facts of the case are that there is a dispute in regard to number of BPL/APL card holders in the State of M.P., between the State of M.P. and Union of India. 9. From the aforesaid correspondence, it is clear that the State Government has been distributing foodgrains of 20 kgs. per month per BPL and APL card holders. Undisputed facts of the case are that there is a dispute in regard to number of BPL/APL card holders in the State of M.P., between the State of M.P. and Union of India. The State of M.P. has framed an order named as ‘Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Order 2009’) in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 read with section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (No.10 of 1955) and in pursuance of GSR 681 (E) and GSR 82 (E) both dated 30th November, 1974 and GSR 800 dated 9th June, 1978 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Food) for securing the availability of essential commodities at control price of ration cards issued to the card holders of State of Madhya Pradesh. Order 2(m) and (n) of Order, 2009 defines Ration Card and Ration card authority, which are as under : “2. (m) “Ration card” means the following types of ration card : (i) ration card issued to above poverty line families; (ii) ration card issued to below poverty line families; (iii) ration card issued to Antyodaya Anna Yojana families; (n) “Ration card authority” means an authority authorized for preparation and distribution of ration cards in its jurisdiction.” 10. Order 3 of the Order 2009 prescribes issuance of ration cards, which is as under : “3. Issuance of ration cards. -- On the basis of poverty estimates of the Planning Commission of Government of India and and the population estimates provided by the Registrar General of Census, Government of India through the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh determines the number of below the pverty line families in the State, and the provision for issuance of ration cards through below poverty line families, above poverty line families and antyodaya anna yojana families shall be as per Annexure I appended to this order.” 11. Orders 8 and 9 of the Order 2009 prescribe inspection and supervision and monitoring of fair price shops. Clause 3 of Annexure I prescribes procedure in regard to issuance of ration cards. Orders 8 and 9 of the Order 2009 prescribe inspection and supervision and monitoring of fair price shops. Clause 3 of Annexure I prescribes procedure in regard to issuance of ration cards. The relevant clause of Annexure I is as under : Annexure I (See Clause 3) “(1) xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx (3) District Level Officers of Panchayat and Rural Development and the Urban Administration Department shall be responsible to make available the list of published below poverty line families surveyed to District Supply Controller/District Supply Officer before the 5th of every month informing the amendments made to the list of below poverty line ration card holders. The said information shall be sent by the authorized officer to the District Supply Controller/District Supplier Officer in soft copy, as prescribed by the Commissioner. The District Supply Controller/District Supply Officer shall thereafter recommend after verification, the said amended list to the Collector and thereafter below poverty line and Antyodaya Anna Yojana ration card shall be issued.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also passed certain orders in Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001 (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and others). Order dated 8th May, 2002 in regard to identification of BPL families, is as under : “(n) It has been stated by the petitioner that the identification of BPL families is not being done properly and the criteria for the identification of the BPL families are neither clear nor uniform. The Central and the State Governments are directed to frame clear guidelines for proper identification of BPL families.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition issued another order on 9th May, 2005, which is as under : “In 5th Report of August, 2004 of the Commissioners it has been reported that on ground level, Public Distribution System is not working well, many poor people living BPL have not been issued the BPL ration cards. Orders of this Court are not being implemented and to support details have been given at page 3411 along with recommendations up to page 3421. Orders of this Court are not being implemented and to support details have been given at page 3411 along with recommendations up to page 3421. The recommendation is that the Chief Secretaries shall put in place a mechanism to ensure suitable action against the officials who hesitate in taking action against the guilty; the State Government shall set up Committees to frame detailed procedure and time frames for dealing with independent Public Service Commission be constituted to listen to the grievances and provide redressal in a time bound manner and the said body should be vested with necessary powers and finances to carry out its functions and to ensure implementation of Court’s orders. Some of the States mentioned are Rajasthan, M.P., Orissa, Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Assam. The State Governments have not responded to the report. A grievance has also been made by Mr. Gonsalves that despite letters from the Commissioner pointing out the violations of the Court’s orders appropriate actions are not taken. Learned counsel suggests that the licenses of the violators shall be cancelled and work of Public Distribution System be assigned to Panchayat or other bodies. Before we consider these aspects, we deem it appropriate to give a last opportunity to the State Governments to respond to the report, particularly those States whose names have been mentioned in the report, to file their response within eight weeks.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition further, issued order on 27th July, 2010, reported in (2010)11 SCC 719 , which is as under : “4. We would like the learned Food and Public Distribution Secretary, Union of India to respond within two weeks on the following points : (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x (iii) x x x x (iv) x x x x (v) x x x x (vi) x x x x (vii) In a country where admittedly people are starving, it is crime to waste even a single grain. The official statement made by the Government indicates that there is wastage of food at many places. The Government may consider constructing adequate warehouses or food storage facilities on a long term basis. On a short term basis, they can also consider hiring warehouses or putting up waterproof tents to save the grain. But all our efforts must be made to ensure that not a single grain is wasted. The Government may consider constructing adequate warehouses or food storage facilities on a long term basis. On a short term basis, they can also consider hiring warehouses or putting up waterproof tents to save the grain. But all our efforts must be made to ensure that not a single grain is wasted. (viii) According to the reports of Justice Wadhwa, there is pilferage at every stage. To avoid too many stages, the Union of India may consider that ration be sent to the fair price shops directly from the godowns of Food Corporation of India. (ix) There must be total accountability of all those people who are responsible and in-chage of PDS and the Government may consider taking appropriate steps, including prosecution against those people who are found responsible for misusing the system or officials getting involved in corrupt and unfair practices. (x) The Government must take into consideration the recommendation of the National Advisory Council. 5. On 10.1.2008, this Court fixed the limit of 35 kgs. for ration card holder for the category of BPL and Antyodaya Anna Yojana. Whether that has been implemented or not, we would like the response of the Union Food Secretary. Let that be filed within two weeks from today. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also indicated that huge stock of food is being wasted because the Government does not have adequate facility of storing it. The Government may consider releasing the food to the people who deserve it.” 13. The Deputy Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Government of M.P. wrote a letter dated 27.5.2006 to all the Collectors in regard to identification of bogus BPL card holders. 14. From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that due to dispute in regard to real number of BPL card holders, proper quantity of foodgrains of 35 kgs. per month has not been distributed to the BPL families. As per the return of the State Government, it is distributing only 20 kgs. per month to the BPL card holders because the number of BPL card holders and Antyodaya card holders in the State of M.P. are quite large i.e. 68.7 lacs, however, the Union of India is allocating foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System to the State of Madhya Pradesh of 35 kgs. per month to the BPL card holders because the number of BPL card holders and Antyodaya card holders in the State of M.P. are quite large i.e. 68.7 lacs, however, the Union of India is allocating foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System to the State of Madhya Pradesh of 35 kgs. per month per family on the basis of 41.25 lacs BPL and Antyoday ration card holders. The relevant pleadings of the return filed by the State Government are as under : “In respect to all these averments, it is most humbly submitted that the Union of India has been allotting foodgrains which is sufficient for 41.25 lacs BPL. And Antyodaya Ration Card holders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.196/2001 has given directions to submit the affidavit in respect of distribution of 35 kgs. of foodgrain to Below Poverty Line family. For the said affidavit was filed by Government of M.P. The copy of the affidavit is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1 and the list of BPL of year 2002 can be modified by adding and deleting the names of the BPL card holders as per the survey of the States and the requirements of the State. On the said basis the holders of the BPL and Antyodaya Ration Cards have increased to 68.71 lacs. The Union of India as per Targeted Public Distribution System is allotting 35 kgs. of foodgrains to basic list of 2002 i.e. 41.25 lacs BPL and Antyodaya Ration Cards holders. Now the aforesaid card holders have increased to 68.71 lacs, therefore, the distribution per ration card holders has decreased to 20 kgs. However, State Government has made various requests to Union of India to make allotment of the good stuff in accordance with the number of BPL and Antyodaya Card holders i.e. 68.71 lacs. Copy of the representation and request letter are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2. In the meantime as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Union of India has allotted additional quantity of foodgrains for six months from November, 2010 to March, 2011, in result thereto, the State Government has distributed 35 kgs. of food stuff per card for only two months and 23 kgs. per card for three months. In the meantime as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Union of India has allotted additional quantity of foodgrains for six months from November, 2010 to March, 2011, in result thereto, the State Government has distributed 35 kgs. of food stuff per card for only two months and 23 kgs. per card for three months. Now again the Union of India has decreased the allotment and come to the earlier level of distribution i.e. for 41.25 lacs BPL and Antyodaya Ration Card holders. Copy of the allocation chart for the relevant months is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-3.” 15. The State Government has framed Control Order, 2009, a statutory enactment in regard to supply of essential commodities control. There are statutory provisions in the order in regard to issuance of BPL and APL ration cards. The Union of India has fixed the number of ration cards on the basis of projected population of the State of Madhya Pradesh of the year 2000 and the poverty estimates of planning commission of 1993-94, now, it is the year of 2012. The Union of India has taken the facts into consideration for fixing the number of BPL card holders in the State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of population of the State of M.P. in the year 2000 and the 1993-94 poverty estimates of Planning Commission, this is far behind the reality. It is unfortunate that in spite of serious problem of malnutrition, hunger and starvation deaths, no steps have been taken to identify the real number of BPL and APL card holders by the Union of India or the State of Madhya Pradesh and due to the aforesaid inaction the real persons, who are living Below Poverty Line or who are holding the Antyoday Anna Yojana Cards, are not getting sufficient quantity of foodgrains i.e. 35 kgs. per month and they are getting only 20 kgs. per month. It is in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Census 2011 has also been completed. As informed by the officers of Food Department that the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), 2011 is going to be completed in the month of March, 2012. The aforesaid fact has also been mentioned in para 10 of the affidavit of Mr. The Census 2011 has also been completed. As informed by the officers of Food Department that the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), 2011 is going to be completed in the month of March, 2012. The aforesaid fact has also been mentioned in para 10 of the affidavit of Mr. Nitish Kumar Sinha, Director in Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India. The census would also provide a base in regard to fixing the number of BPL and APL card holders. The State of M.P. in its affidavit has stated that in 2011-12, it would not be in a position to store foodgrains that would be collected on support price basis because there is no extra capacity of storage available in the State due to earlier storage of foodgrains. 16. The Government of India has recognised the Right to Food as a basic Human Right, it is enacting a Food Security Bill. It would be a historic implementation of social protection programme against hunger. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India and others, reported in (2011)5 SCC 676, has held as under in regard to the “Right to livelihood” which is an integral part of the “right to life” : “1. The Framers of the Constitution, in the Preamble to the Constitution, guaranteed to secure to its citizens justice social, economic and political as well as equality of status and opportunity but the “right to employment” was not incorporated in Part III of the Constitution as a fundamental right. By judicial pronouncements, the Court expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and included various facets of life as rights protected under the said Article despite the fact that they had not been incorporated by specific language in Part III by the Framers of the Constitution. Judgments of this Court in Ogla Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in (1985)3 SCC 545 , and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. Stte of Haryana, reported in (1994)4 SCC 460 , expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that “right to livelihood” is an integral part of the “right to life”.” 17. Judgments of this Court in Ogla Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in (1985)3 SCC 545 , and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. Stte of Haryana, reported in (1994)4 SCC 460 , expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that “right to livelihood” is an integral part of the “right to life”.” 17. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ogla Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, reported in (1985)3 SCC 545 , has held as under in regard to right to life, which is guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India : “32. As we have stated while summing up the petitioners’ case, the main plank of their argument is that the right to life which is guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and since, they will be deprived of their livelihood if they are evicted from their slum and pavement dwellings, their eviction is tantamount to deprivation of their life and is hence unconstitutional. For purposes of argument, we will assume the factual correctness of the premise that if the petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be deprived of their livelihood. Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to liveliohood. We see only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure establishedby law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they have no means of livelihood in the villages. The motive force which propels their desertion of their hearths and homes in the village is the struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for life. So unimpeachable is the evidence of the nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live. Only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by Douglas J. in Baksey [(1954) 347 MD 442], that the right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. “Life”, as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois [(1877) 94 US 113], means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. This observation was quoted with approval by this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [ (1964)1 SCR 332 : AIR 1963 SC 1295 ]. 33. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which is a Directive Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 41, which is another Directive Principle, provides, inter alia, that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work in cases of unemployment and of undeserved want. Article 41, which is another Directive Principle, provides, inter alia, that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work in cases of unemployment and of undeserved want. Article 37 provides that the Directive Principles, though not enforceable by any Court, are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. The Principles contained in Arts.39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If there is an obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life. The State may not, by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right, to life conferred by Article 21.” 18. Learned counsel of the Union of India has raised an objection in regard to maintainability of this Public Interest Litigation petition on the ground that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court is conscious about the aforesaid fact but the fact remains that in spite of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the BPL and APL card holders of the State of M.P. are getting foodgrains of 20 kgs. per family per month. It is due to the dispute of number of BPL and APL card holders in the State of M.P. between the Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh. 19. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the BPL and APL card holders are entitled to receive foodgrains of 35 kgs. per month per family, however, the BPL and APL card holders of the State of Madhya Pradesh are getting only 20 kgs. per month due to difference of number of card holders between the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh. per month per family, however, the BPL and APL card holders of the State of Madhya Pradesh are getting only 20 kgs. per month due to difference of number of card holders between the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh. If the version of Union of India be accepted then also the persons, who are not BPL familities, are getting the benefit of subsidised foodgrains and real BPL familities are not getting the benefit as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is an alarming situation and contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This situation shows that the hunger is not caused by an absolute shortage of foodgrains but due to the inaction on the part of the Administration in regard to proper identification of BPL and APL families. It is really pathetic and shocks the conscience of the Court because in spite of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no steps have been taken by the Union of India to fix the real number of BPL and APL card holders. 20. It is also a fact that some persons have died due to starvation in Shivpuri and Sheopur districts. There is an acute malnutrition in the neighbouring districts of Gwalior region. The State Government further stated that it would not able to procure foodgrains on administered price in forthcoming Rabi season because it has no facility to store foodgrains and godown have already been packed. Foodgrains can also be saved from wastage due to inadequate capacity of store. Looking to the aforesaid alarming situation and the fact that the right to food is a basic human right and necessary for right to life, in our opinion, this Court can issue direction to the respondents in regard to removal of anomaly of number of BPL and APL card holders in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 21. Consequently, this Public Interest Litigation petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The Union of India shall finalize the list of BPL and APL card holders in accordance with the dates of Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), 2011 which is mentioned in para 10 of the affidavit filed by Mr. Nitish Kumar Sinha, Director in Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India. Nitish Kumar Sinha, Director in Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India. (ii) The Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh shall formulate policy in regard to identification of BPL and APL card holders for the purpose of fixing the quantity of distribution of foodgrains to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). (iii) The Union of India shall also consider the additional allotment of foodgrains to the State of Madhya Pradesh for distribution of foodgrains to the BPL and APL card holders, so 35 kgs. of foodgrains as fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court could be distributed to BPL and APL card holders in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (iv) The Collectors of District Gwalior, Morena, Bhind, Sheopur, Shivpuri, Guna, Ashok Nagar, Datia and Vidisha shall take a special drive in regard to identification of bogus BPL and APL card holders in their respective districts and submit a compliance report to the Registry of this Court. (v) The Union of India shall also consider the request of the State Government in regard to grant of permission to the State Government to distribute the stored food to the existing BPL and APL card holders on administered price, so an additional capacity be created for the purpose of storage of foodgrains during forthcoming Rabi session. (vi) The directions issued by this Court be complied with within a period of two months. (vii) Looking to the facts of the case, the respondent No.1 Union of India is directed to pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the petitioner.