The Delhi High Court has noted that a ration card is specifically issued for the purpose of obtaining essential commodities from shops operating under the public distribution system. It emphasized that a ration card should not be regarded as a valid proof of address or residence.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh pointed out that the authority issuing ration cards has not established any mechanism to verify whether the holder actually resides at the address mentioned on the card.

The Court emphasized that the primary objective of the ration card is to ensure that citizens have access to food grains at affordable prices through the Public Distribution System. It clarified that the ration card should not be relied upon as a proof of address, as its purpose is limited to facilitating the distribution of food items.

Justice Singh made these observations while addressing the pleas submitted by various jhuggi dwellers residing in the Kathputli Colony of the city. These individuals were seeking alternative housing units in exchange for their respective jhuggis.

In 2010, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) conducted a survey of the Kathputli Colony, and residents submitted relevant documents to its officials. Subsequently, the DDA initiated the redevelopment of the colony through a public-private partnership model. A policy was formulated in 2014 to rehabilitate the dwellers of the colony, with January 1, 2015, set as the cutoff date. The DDA established bodies to facilitate residents of various jhuggis in filing their claims for rehabilitation, as well as an Appellate Authority to adjudicate on appeals related to this process.

The petitioners' claims for rehabilitation were denied on the basis that their jhuggis were deemed nonexistent, resulting in their inclusion in the list of ineligible slum dwellers. Additionally, one petitioner's claim was rejected because he failed to provide a separate ration card, which was a mandatory requirement for alternative allotment according to the policy guidelines. The petitioners argued that they had applied for ration cards but were not issued them by the Competent Authority.

Granting relief to the jhuggi dwellers, the court stated that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had erred in relying on the ration card as proof of address. The court emphasized that the DDA failed to consider the gazette notification issued by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution in 2015, which disallowed the use of ration cards as proof of identity or residence. Furthermore, the court highlighted the definition of a ration card and the underlying intent behind its issuance.

Granting the pleas, the court instructed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allocate alternative dwelling units to the petitioners. However, this allocation is subject to the condition that the petitioners provide the necessary documents issued before the specified cut-off date, deposit the required amount as stipulated, and fulfill any other mandated requirements.

Counsel for Petitioners: Ms.Sumayya Khatoon, Mr.Kamal Mehta, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Rajiv Shukla, Ms.Shivani Kapoor, Mr.Sahaj Karan Singh and Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocates for DDA; Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr.Kuljeet Singh, Advocate

Title: MOHAMMAD HAKIM AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY