Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 4. Notice for respondent no.5 has been accepted by Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel.

¶8

Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by respondent no.3, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules as licensee of fair price shop of Village Panchayat Bhatgaon, Vikas Khand and Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow in place of his brother late Ashish Singh.

¶9

Learned counsels for the parties state that facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order dated 13.03.2024.

¶10

For the sake of convenience, the order dated 13.03.2024 is reproduced below:-

¶11

"Heard.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of fair price shop license on compassionate grounds has been rejected.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the real brother of the petitioner namely Shri Ashish Singh was the holder of fair price shop license. He died in a road accident on 12.12.2023. The father of the petitioner has pre-deceased her brother and both, the mother of the petitioner as well as the petitioner, were dependent on Shri Ashish Singh.

¶14

The contention is that the competent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for being granted the license of fair price shop on the ground that the petitioner in the capacity of being the sister of the deceased does not fall within the ambit of being "family" as defined in Clause (IV)-10 of the government order dated 05.08.2019 as well as the control order of 2016.

¶15

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of UP and others passed in Writ Petition No. 13015 (M/S) of 2020 decided on 03.09.2020 and Writ Petition No. 2899 (M/B) of 2015 in re: Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and others decided on 20.07.2016 wherein this Court after considering the definition of "family" as provided in the relevant government orders has held that grandson would fall within the definition of "family" on the ground that he was wholly dependent on the deceased license holder.

¶16

The argument is that the petitioner in the capacity of being real sister of the deceased license holder was wholly dependent on the license holder and as such would be entitled for being given the fair price shop license on compassionate grounds.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a weeks' time to seek instructions as to why the benefit of judgements of this Court in the cases of Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) and Ashok Kumar (supra) be not extended to the petitioner and as to whether the fair price shop license which has fallen vacant on the death of brother of the petitioner has been allotted to any third party.

¶18

List this case in the next week as fresh.

¶19

It is also provided that in case the said shop has not been allotted to a third party, the same shall not be allotted till the next date of listing."

¶20

Today, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions states that the shop in dispute has still not been allotted to any third party rather the same has been attached for distribution of the food grains.

¶21

Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is the sister of Sri Ashish Singh, the license holder of fair price shop, who died in a road accident on 12.12.2023. It is contended that the father of the petitioner had pre-deceased her brother and both, the mother of the petitioner as well as the petitioner, were dependent on Sri Ashish Singh.

¶22

Upon the petitioner staking her claim for being given the license of fair price shop on compassionate ground the same has been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 30.01.2024 on the ground that the sister of the licensee would not fall within the ambit of 'family' as defined in Clause IV (10) of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019.

¶23

Perusal of the aforesaid government order and Clause IV (10) would indicate that the definition of family has been indicated in which admittedly the sister of the deceased license holder has not been included.

¶24

However, the claim of the petitioner is for grant of the license on the basis of being a 'dependent' of a license holder.

¶25

In this regard, it would be apt to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others passed in W rit Petition No. 2899 (M/B) of 2015 decided on 20.07.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby this Court after considering the definition of 'family' as defined under the aforesaid Government Order was of the view that even if a person is not included in the definition of family as defined in the aforesaid government order yet he would be entitled for being considered for grant of license on the ground of being a dependent of the deceased licensee.

¶26

The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of UP and others passed in Writ Petition No. 13015 (M/S) of 2020 decided on 03.09.202.

¶27

From a perusal of the aforesaid judgments of this Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) , it emerges that this Court after considering the definition of family as given in the aforesaid government order was of the view that even though the said government order defines the persons who fall within the ambit of being a 'family' yet in the case of a person who was dependent on the deceased license holder he can also be considered for grant of a license of a fair price shop on compassionate ground.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel has been unable to persuade this Court to take a different view from that taken in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) except contending that the same pertain to a grandson having staked his claim for compassionate appointment.

¶29

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is

¶30

allowed . The order impugned dated 30.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is set-aside. The SubDivisional Magistrate, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow i.e. respondent no.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of fair price shop license keeping in view the discussion made above.

¶31

Let a decision be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 A. Katiyar

¶33

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akanksha Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 4 Others

What the court decided

Akanksha Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 4 Others

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guru Dayal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs Suresh Chandra

Sara Parveen Vs Jibran Faheem

Radhika Kishan Chand Surtani and Another Vs Ist Addl. Judge Small Causes Lucknow

Allahabad Bank through the Regional Manager Vs the Central Govt.Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lko.

Dinesh Chandra Awasthi Vs Smt. Bindeshwari