Shaffique,J Petitioner had approached this court seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate instructions to all ration retail shop owners to publish in their notice board the items or articles entitled to be received by ration card holders every month and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner claims to be a pro borno public. He claims to have approached the Human Rights Commission and LokAyuktha in public interest . 2. According to him, every ration card holder has to approach the ration shop for wheat, rice, sugar, kerosene etc depending upon the card they hold as 'Above Poverty Line' (APL) or 'Below Poverty Line' (BPL). The quantity of such articles are usually fixed every month by the concerned authorities. The petitioner submits that the public is not aware of such quantity of food items which are to be supplied to either APL or BPL card holders. Therefore, it is necessary that appropriate orders should WP(c)No. 34347/14 2 be issued by respondent authority to call upon the retail shop owners to exhibit the details of said articles in a notice board.
3. It is not in dispute that retail shop owners are conducting retail business in rationing articles based on Kerala Rationing Order and the directions issued from time to time. They are bound to maintain various registers which include registers relating to supply of rationing articles to BPL as well as APL card holders, which is monitored by Ration Supply Officer and other Officers acting under such authority.
4. The petitioner’s complaint is with reference to non exhibition of details of ration articles to be supplied to card holders in each ration shop. These are all matters to be considered by appropriate authorities and it is not open for the petitioner to demand that a particular policy should be adopted by the Government. Materials now available do not indicate that there is any necessity to provide such a publication in the form of notice board. At any rate, if petitioner has any grievance to the present procedure, that is being adopted by the Department, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the second respondent WP(c)No. 34347/14 3 with appropriate suggestions. We do not think that this is a fit case to be considered in the form of a public interest litigation.
Accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
sou.