This beneficiaries of Statutory Rationing are an elitist lot. They have on average 15 years of urban residence behind them, four-fifths having secure jobs in coveted Governmental or other public sector. Per capita income of typical SR beneficiary household during 1984/85 was estimated (in a companion paper) as significantly in excess of the corresponding figure for the average urban household. It is not surprising that this lot is not overly protective of each and every aspect of their entitlements under SR. For example, only 59% of full ration entitlement of an average beneficiary household are utilised. While not overly protective, household’s attitude to SR foodgrains is nevertheless informed by economic discretion. This is because underutilisation is not so much due to irregular lifting as to partial lifting. SR is taken advantage of on the strength of shrewd calculation of relative prices between the ration and market regime. Between 12 and 13% of the total allotment— or somewhat over 20% of what’s lifted— is resold, presumably for gain. The hallmark of a rationing system in a poor country ought to lie in the foodstress characteristics of those aided, not in their ability to take discretionary advantage of it. For, if rationing becomes virtually an extension of the market regime, the distinction is not worth making in practice. SR should in such a case be eliminated. It is befitting, although somewhat belated, that all subsidies on SR will be eliminated by 1989.