Allahabad HC Ruled : Grandson Also A Member Of The Family and Entitled To Fair Shop License

The Allahabad High Court has ruled the grandson is also a member of the family and is entitled to obtain a government fair shop licence in place of his paternal grandfather.

The court also said that it was fair that the grandson was not included among the family members in the Government Order dated 5^th August, 2019.

According to the court, the definition of family should be broadened.

The court also ruled that, in broadening the definition of family, other members of the family, such as a son, an unmarried daughter, and so on, should be included in addition to the wife.

Those who were wholly dependent on the deceased licensee and no other member of the family is eligible to take the licence should be given a shop licence.

Allowing Sandeep Kumar’s petition, Justice Neeraj Tiwari directed to grant a licence to the Petitioner for Fair Price Shop. The petitioner claimed that his Baba Munshilal Rajbhar had the shop licence, but he passed away on May 5, 2021.

When the petitioner applied, it was denied because the Government Order dated August 5, 2019, as it does not include Grandson in the definition of family.

According to the court, the grandson has the right to obtain a shop licence in place of his father.

Referring to the Judgment in the case of Misc. Single Nos. 2899 of 2015 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food & Rasad Deptt. & 2 others) & 13015 of 2020 (Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies & ors.), the court ruled that:

The controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in aforesaid Judgments therefore the allowed the Writ Petition.

Supreme Court in the case of the Ashok Kumar, Sunil Kumar case, the Supreme Court ruled that the grandson is also entitled to obtain a government Fair shop licence in place of his father.

Court No. - 18   

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32392 of 2021

 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar And

 Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Yadav,Abhishek Kumar Yadav

 Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.2 of 2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Goan Sabha through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he does not want to press the amendment application, therefore, it may be dismissed as not pressed, for which counsel for respondents have no objection.

Accordingly, amendment application is dismissed as not pressed. Civil Misc. Modification Application No.3 of 2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Goan Sabha through video conferencing. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he does not want to press the modification application, therefore, it may be dismissed as not pressed, for which counsel for respondents have no objection.

Accordingly, modification application is dismissed as not pressed. Order on order sheet Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Goan Sabha through video conferencing. Present petition has been filed quashing the order dated 23.08.2021, by which application of petitioner for allotment of fair price shop under dying-in-harness has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier fair price shop license was allotted in the name of grand father of petitioner No. 1 namely, Munshi Lal Rajbhar who died on 05.05..2021. Mother of petitioner was illiterate, therefore, she had not applied for allotment of fair price shop license. It is next submitted that being grand son, petitioner no. 1 has applied for fair price shop which was rejected on the ground that he does not come within the definition of family as given in paragraph IV (10) of Government Order dated 5.8.2019. The very same controversy was came before Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Single Nos. 2899 of 2015 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food & Rasad Deptt. & 2 others) & 13015 of 2020 (Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies & ors.), in which Court vide orders dated 20.7.2016 & 3.9.2020 accorded the benefit of Government Order dated 5.8.2019 to the grand son.

The Court is of the considered view in the cases of Ashok Kumar and Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) that definition of family can be enlarged to include such family members other than the wife, son and unmarried daughter in case such family member was totally dependent on the deceased licenses and there is no other eligible person in the family who can be considered for grant of fair price shop license and finally allowed the petitions quashing the impugned orders with direction to consider the claim of petitioner and pass fresh order within six weeks. Relying upon the same, Writ-C No. 32296 of 2021 (Akansha Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 2 others) has also been allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2021. Lastly, he submitted that controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by judgement of this Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar(Supra), Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) and Akansha Singh (Supra), which were allowed vide orders dated 20.7.2016 & 3.9.2020, therefore, this petition may also be allowed on the same terms and conditions.

Learned counsels for respondents though opposed, but could not disputed the legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as record. The facts of the case are undisputed. Petitioner No. 1 is grand son of deceased Munshi Lal Rajbhar and his candidature was rejected only on the ground that grand son does not come within the definition of family member as defined in Government Order dated 5.8.2019.

 The controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar(Supra), Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) and Akansha Singh (Supra). Accordingly, impugned order dated 23.08.2021 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed in terms of orders dated 20.7.2016, 3.9.2020 & 04.12.2021 passed in Misc. Single Nos. 2899 of 2015, 13015 of 2020 and Writ-C No. 32296 of 2021.

Concerned respondents are directed to verify the facts and if petitioner No. 1 is grand son of deceased, he shall also be given same benefits, which is given to petitioners in the cases of Ashok Kumar(Supra), Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) and Akansha Singh (Supra).

Order Date :- 10.1.2022.