2. THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM –
AN OVERVIEW
Public Distribution System (PDS) is a poverty alleviation programme and contributes towards the
social welfare of the people. It is considered as principal instrument in the hands of State
Governments for providing safety net to the poor against the spiralling rise in prices of essential
commodities.
Essential commodities like rice,
wheat, sugar, kerosene etc. are
supplied to the people at
reasonable prices.
It is a boon to the
people living BPL.
Revamped Public Distribution
System (RPDS) has been initiated
by the GoI from 1992 in order to
provide essential commodities
to the people living in remote,
backward and hilly areas.
Government introduced Targeted
Public Distribution System (TPDS) in
the year 1997.

3. WADHWA COMMITTEE ON THE
PDS IN KARNATAKA – CASE STUDY
LEGISLATION PROTECTION
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Any person aggrieved by the confiscation essential commodity can file
an appeal to the judicial authority appointed by the state.
The PDS Order, 2001, under clause 11
Aggrieved person in case of denial of ration card, issue and renewal of
license, may file appeal before the appellate authority, the appeal
will be heard by the authority and an appellate authority will be
formed for looking into the functions and grievances of the PDS.
The Karnataka Essential Commodities
Control Order 1992, clause 17
Allows people denied, suspension of license or forfeiture of security
deposit can appeal to the appellate authority
 The committee visited Bangalore, Mysore, Dharwad, Haveri, Gadag districts of Karnataka.
 The committee along with the food commissioner held informal public hearings and visited FPS.
 But the committee observed that there is no strong implementation or enforcement of any of
these methods of grievance redressal.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS OF
WADHWA COMMITTEE
1. Central Vigilance Committee is of the considered view that an independent
monitoring mechanism for addressing consumer complaints .
2. Such grievance redressal machinery would be in addition to the existing legal
remedies that may be available to an aggrieved person under Clause 11 of the
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001.
3. Mechanism may be in the form of “Ombudsman/ Regulator” that may be
created. He/she would act as ‘Watch Dog’ to ensure effective compliance of the
PDS Control Order and should focus on investigating and resolving individual
complaints and also address systemic issues. The Ombudsman/Regulator shall
oversee the functioning of the Enforcement Branch including the Anti Hoarding
Cell.
4. Provide free, fair, independent mechanism for speedy resolution of complaints
with reference to the benchmark set out in the governing statute, order and
circulars by the authorities and provide consumers an easily accessible system,
which would be just and speedy in redressal of their complaints and grievances.

5. FORMULATION OF A GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL MECHANISM
Grievance Redress Mechanism is part and parcel
of the machinery of any administration. No
administration can claim to be accountable,
responsive and user-friendly unless it has
established an efficient and effective grievance
redress mechanism. In fact, the grievance redress
mechanism of an organization is the gauge to
measure its efficiency and effectiveness as it
provides important feedback on the working of the
administration.

6. CREATION OF A GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL MECHANISM
PROCESSOF
REDRESSAL
TIER I
Fair Price Shops monitored by the Assistant Grievance Redressal
Officer (AGRO) who is entitled to supervise over the FPS at the
sub-district, municipality and panchayat levels. The FPS owners
answerable to the AGRO.
TIER II
Food & Supply Officer of District or Department of Food & Civil
Supplies of State / Union Territory controlled and monitored by the
GRO
TIER III
Consumer Forum. Controlled by the SGRC who has a wide
jurisdiction powers.
Adoption of revised Model citizen’s charter.

7. INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND
STRUCTURE
1. Creation of Central and State Grievance Redressal
Commissions with Central Grievance Redressal
Commissioner (CGRC) and State Grievance Redressal
Commissioner (SGRC) vested with special powers. The state
GRC’s co-ordinate with the central GRCs for matters of
procurement, allocation and transportation of goods.
2. There will be a GRO at the district level. And a Assistant
Grievance Redressal Officer(AGRO) at the sub-district,
municipality and panchayat levels who co-ordinate with the
GRO of the district. GRC’s, GRO and the AGRO are
appointed by the FCI at the central and state level.
CGRC
SGRC
GRO
AGRO
Any citizen may file a complaint and the complaints must be redressed within a period of 30 days and extensions
similar to Section 7 of the RTI Act. Every registered complaint needs to be given a token number for accountability
and efficiency. In case of genuine reasons of lack of resources and overlapping of jurisdiction can the AGRO
forward the complaint to the GRO. Weekly once, the AGRO must submit a detailed report to the GRO(for
documentation and for transparency in the system)
Hierarchy at the Grievances Redressal
Commission

8. ROLES AND POWERS
GRO
AGRO
1. Monitors the activities at the District level.
2. Power of the GRO greater than the AGRO. Has a wider
jurisdiction than the GRO.
3. Maintains the accounts and responsible for functioning
of all the APIO under that district.
4. The letters which come to the GRO are forwarded to the
responsible AGRO.
1. Can discuss issues with the existing Vigilance Committee
related to complaints received. Since the complaints are
usually at the grass-root level, this function of the AGRO
becomes very crucial.
2. AGRO can provide Redressal to the grievances under his
jurisdiction. The others are forwarded to the GRO.
3. Since the APIO works at the grass-root level, he/she is
vested with certain powers of monitoring and keeping a
check on the FPS.

9. PUNITIVE MEASURES
The Bill empowers the appellate authorities to impose penalty
up to Rs.50,000 upon defaulting officers and GROs. A portion of
the penalty may be awarded as compensation to the
complainant. In case there is evidence of corruption against any
authority, the GRO is bound to inform the Court or any other
judicial authority with at least a little evidence. Strict legal action
will be taken against the FPS and other authorities involved in
wrong doings.
TIME BOUND SERVICE DELIVERY AND GREIVANCE REDRESSAL BILL, 2011

10. IMPACT OF POLICY
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Speedy
redressal
Increases
quality
Efficiency of
PDS
System of
checks and
balances
Increases
Accessibility

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Bhalla, Surjit S. (2012, Jan 7). Enhancing Corruption the NAC Way. Oxus Investments. Retrieved from
http://www.oxusinvestments.com/files/pdf/169enhancingcorruptiontheNACway.pdf
- Geetha, S and Suryanarayana, M. (1993, Oct). Revamping PDS: Some Issues and Implications. Jstor:
Economic and political weekly, 28(41).
- Indrakanth S. (1997, May). Coverages and Leakages in PDS in Andhra Pradesh. Jstor: Economic and
political weekly, 32(19).
- Jha, Shikha and Srinivasan, P. (2001, Oct). Taking the PDS to the Poor: Directions for further reforms.
Jstor: Economic and political weekly, 36(39).
- Jitendra. (2013, May). Public Deprived System. Down to Earth.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/public-deprivedsystem
- Mahendra, Dev. (1998, August 29). Public Distribution System: Impact on Poor and Options for Reform.
Jstor: Economic and political weekly.
- Planning Commission. (2005). Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).
Retrieved from http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_tpds.pdf
- Planning Commission. (2005). Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).
Retrieved from http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_tpds.pdf