Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 533 (MP)

Dinesh Sikarwar v. State of M. P.

2017-04-20

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SHEEL NAGU

body2017
ORDER : The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs:- 1. Looking to the fact and circumstances of the case respondent may kindly be directed that in pursuant of the order/circular issued at annexure P/1 the poor people who are having no adhaar card and its number ID may not be deprived and right to citizen may kindly be protected and circular issued at annexure P/1 and P/2 be quashed. 2. Further direction may kindly be issued to respondent authority to available the food stuff and kerosene for poor public who are not having any adhaar card so that, they could take the benefit of PDS system. 3. It is further direction may kindly be issued for deciding the representation/legal notice at annexure P/4 within stipulated time. 4. Other relief which is deem fit in the nature of petition, may kindly be awarded. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal. 3. The instructions by the respondent no. 2 issued to Collectors of all the districts of the State of MP is under challenge by which production of Adhar Card is made compulsory for availing the benefit under the public distribution schemes. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several persons including those suffering from disparity of mind body and health who have not been issued any Adhar Card and therefore it is urged that if the impugned instructions are given effect to then the object of PDS of reaching essential commodities to the down trodden, shall stand frustrated. 5. This Court need not enter into the prolixity of adjudication of facts and law due to pendency of WP (C) No. 494/12 (Justice K.S. Putta Swami v. Union of India) and other connected cases before the Apex Court dealing with the challenge to Adhar Card scheme on various grounds. 5. This Court need not enter into the prolixity of adjudication of facts and law due to pendency of WP (C) No. 494/12 (Justice K.S. Putta Swami v. Union of India) and other connected cases before the Apex Court dealing with the challenge to Adhar Card scheme on various grounds. In this case the Apex Court noticed conflict of views in it’s earlier judgments in the case of M.P. Sharma and Ors v. Satish Charndra reported in AIR 1954 SC 300 (eight-judge bench) and in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP reported in AIR 1963 SC 1295 (six-judge bench) opined placing of the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for resolving the conflict by a Bench of appropriate strength, which led to constitution of five-judge bench which passed interlocutory order on 15.10. 2015 which is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus Union Of India & Ors. .. Respondents T.C.(C) No. 151 of 2013 T.C.(C) No. 152 of 2013 Writ Petition(C) No. 829 of 2013 Writ Petition(C) No. 833 of 2013 Writ Petition(C) No. 932 of 2013 Transfer Petition(C) No. 312 of 2014 Transfer Petition(C) No. 313 of 2014 Writ Petition(C) No. 37 of 2015 Writ Petition(C) No. 220 of 2015 Transfer Petition(C) No. 921 of 2015 Conmt.Pet. (C) No. 144 of 2014 In Writ Petition(C) No. 494 of 2012 Conmt.Pet. (C) No. 470 of 2015 In Writ Petition(C) No. 494 of 2012 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2524 of 2014 Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 674 of 2015 In Writ Petition(C) No. 829 of 2013 ORDER 1. This Bench is constituted only for the purpose of deciding the applications filed by the Union of India seeking certain clarification/modification in the orders passed by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court dated 11.08.2015. 2. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, Shri Shyam Divan, Shri Soli Sorabjee and Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsels in extenso. 3. 2. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, Shri Shyam Divan, Shri Soli Sorabjee and Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsels in extenso. 3. After hearing the learned Attorney General for India and other learned senior counsels, we are of the view that in paragraph 3 of the Order dated 11.08.2015, if we add, apart from the other two Schemes, namely, P.D.S. Scheme and the L.P.G. Distribution Scheme, the Schemes like The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), National Social Assistance Programme (Old Age Pensions, Widow Pensions, Disability Pensions) Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) and Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) for the present, it would not dilute earlier order passed by this Court. Therefore, we now include the aforesaid Schemes apart from the other two Schemes that this Court has permitted in its earlier order dated 11.08.2015. 4. We impress upon the Union of India that it shall strictly follow all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from 23.09.2013. 5. We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other. 6. All the applications for intervention and impleadment be heard along with the respective main matters. 7. Applications for modification/clarification filed by Union of India/UIDAI is/are disposed of. 8. Since there is some urgency in the matter, we request the learned Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench for final hearing of these matters at the earliest. Ordered accordingly. New Delhi, October 15, 2015. 6. Pertinently the said matter before the Bench of five Hon’ble judges of Apex Court is pending adjudication till date. 7. From the above said interlocutory order passed by the Apex Court on 15.10.2015, it is evident, especially from the content of para 5 (five), that the Aadhar Card Scheme has been held by the Apex Court to be voluntary and not mandatory pending final adjudication of the controversy by the five-judge bench. 8. In view of the above, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taken care of by the direction of the Apex Court as aforesaid. 9. 8. In view of the above, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taken care of by the direction of the Apex Court as aforesaid. 9. Accordingly, present petition without issuing notice is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to ensure compliance of the directions of the Apex Court as reproduced above by treating possession and production of Aadhar Card to be optional and not mandatory for receiving benefits under the PDS. 10. The copy of this order be furnished to the office of the Additional Advocate General for proper communication to all concerned so that no eligible beneficiary under the PDS is deprived of the benefits under the scheme merely on the basis of non-possession and non-production of Aadhar Card. 11. This WP stands disposed of with above directions.