From Our Correspondent
NONGPOH: Baffled over the non supply of rice under the Public Distribution Supply (PDS) by the Rangbah Shnong to the disadvantaged families under the Below Poverty Line (BPL) at Mynsain village in Ri Bhoi district, the Seng Longkmie along with the Civil Society Women Organization (CSWO) have lodged complaints with the Deputy Commissioner.
It was learnt that the Rangbah Shnong of the said village identified as Ribok Makhroh had deprived the PDS rights of the BPL families by not supplying rice, sugar and kerosene oil for over 10 year to the beneficiaries at Mynsain, thus violating the Supreme Court order and the Essential Commodities Act.
CSWO chief Agnes Kharshiing, after a meeting with the ADC, I Mawlong, informed this scribe that the organisation on getting the complaints from the Seng Longkmie of Mynsain village that the Rangbah Shnong had not supplied PDS items to the BPL families for the past 10 years, had lodged complaints with the Deputy Commissioner of Ri Bhoi district.
“It was only prior to the headman’s election early this year that the villagers were called and provided 10 kilograms of rice per household at Rs 150, which is clear cut extortion by the Rangbah Shnong, as the BPL rice costs Rs 3 per kg. This distribution was held only once just prior to the headman being elected to woo the villagers to elect him again,” Kharshiing said.
She also said that, soon after distributing the PDS supplies to 50 households under BPL scheme, Makhroh on getting information that the Seng Longkmie had lodged their grievances to the CSWO, threatened that he will distribute the PDS supplies to only 11 households.
Kharshiing also informed that, as per the complaints of the people of Mynsain and the Seng Longkmie, the Rangbah Shnong had not only deprived the rights of the PDS right of the BPL families but he also did not issue any AAY, BPL or APL cards to the villagers.
The CSWO chief has sought immediate intervention of the administration to take stringent action against the Rangbah Shnong and other staff of the concerned department responsible, saying that the headman could not have indulged in the act without the knowledge of certain authorities.