The Supreme Court said this while arguing that ComM’s decision, led by Delhi Minister Arvind Kejriwal, to implement the doorstep dosing system, was not an action taken by or on behalf of LG as he has declared his disagreement unresolved. since it has not been submitted to the President.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was not possible to implement the AAP government’s rationing system – Mukhymantri Ghar Ghar Ration Yojn – in its current form as it has not been approved by LG.
It ruled against two plaintiffs from Delhi Sarkari’s Sangh and Delhi dispensers who challenged the system on the grounds that it seeks to circumvent the current owners or dealers of the Fair Price Shop (FPS) in the distribution of food grains. and wheat (atta) at the doorstep of beneficiaries according to TPDS.
“The final decision shall be made by the President on the dispute, and that decision shall govern and bind the Council of Ministers under the chairmanship of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Governor of the Central Bank, who shall act in accordance with the final decision in question,” the court said. said Vipin Sanghi, acting chief judge and Jasmeet Singh judge.
It stated that Comm, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, was obliged to submit its decisions and resolutions, including any such arrangement or proposal, to LG in order to enable it to consider the same and answer whether or not it had a difference of opinion. any such arrangement.
“When any decision of the Secretary of State under the leadership of the Secretary of State is submitted to LG for his approval, he shall bear in mind the decision of the Supreme Court … and make his decision to express his disagreement, if any. , in light of the aforementioned judgment, “it says.
It added that if LG declares its disagreement with its cabinet, it can either demand that the prime minister refer the matter to the president for a decision, or he can, on his own, refer the matter to the president for a decision.
“LG should not react mechanically, without due process, referring every decision of the cabinet to the president.
“The difference of opinion between the Cabinet and LG should have a solid justification and it should not only be taken to prevent the implementation of the Cabinet’s decisions, but it should be based on a positive structure and deep common sense and judgment.
“At the same time, it is the duty of the Board of Directors to abide by LG’s decisions, to enable it to exercise the power conferred on it by Article 239AA (4) of the Constitution and to make a reservation,” the judge said. .
The government of Delhi had defended a plan for the delivery of rations for doorsteps, saying that it was for the poor who were threatened by the owners of the Fair Price (FPS) to refuse the home delivery method, otherwise they would not receive a ration.
The center had objected to this, saying that the court should not allow any government to interfere with the structure of the Food Safety Act (NFSA) and destroy its architecture, and that the FPS is an integral part of the law.
Mail Bonus – #final #decision #lies #President #Council #Ministers #differing #opinions #Supreme #Court #Delhi