# Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 7
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-09
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, V.K. Shukla, Vipin Sinhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indrapal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42809
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Meaning of
word 'family'-whether
brother residing
separately-having no concern with-other
brother, mother, sister etc-can be family
member interpretation given in Ram Murti
case-held correct Law and the condition
having together taking food from common
kitchen-applicable to any other member.

Held: Para-55
In view of this, the definition of family
which includes brother cannot be read in
a fashion to exclude brother from
defined family members and throw him
and club him in the category of any other
member, who has been staying together
and has been dining together, in view of
this, the said portion of the Ram Murat's
Case (supra) is not being approved of.

Words and Phrases-work family used in
clause 2(o) of U.P. Sheduled commodities
Distribution order 2004-shall not override
the definition contained in para 4.7 of G.O.
03.07.1990.
Held: Para-53
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that
there is no conflict whatsoever in between
the provisions of Clause 2 (o) Clauses 30
and 31 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 vis.a.vis with the
definition
of
"family"
as
given
in
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
paragraph 4.7 and the Division Bench in
Ram Murat's case 2006 (5) ADJ 396,
defining the word "family" as given in
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990,
Paragraph 4.7 lays down the correct law,
even after enforcement of Control Order
2004, except to the extent of introducing
concept of joint residence and joint
kitchen in reference of Brother, whereas
the definition of family is clearly inclusive
of brother also and the definition of family
as given in Clause 2 (o) of U.P. Scheduled
Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 in
no way would override the definition of
family given in Paragraph 4.7 of the
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
and the said definition has to be read in
the context of issuance of ration cards and
nothing beyond the same.

Case Law discussed:
(2006) (5) ADJ 396; [(1987) 1 SCC 424;
2006(3) SCC 434; AIR 2007 SC 2458; 2013(1)
scale 7; 2002(3) SCC 481; AIR 1962 All 240.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,932 of 63,021. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39932 for what follows._

1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
7

15.
The
special
appeal
shall,
accordingly, stand dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24620 Of 2013

Indrapal Singh... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Bhanot, Sri J.K.S. Sikarwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Meaning of
word 'family'-whether
brother residing
separately-having no concern with-other
brother, mother, sister etc-can be family
member interpretation given in Ram Murti
case-held correct Law and the condition
having together taking food from common
kitchen-applicable to any other member.

Held: Para-55
In view of this, the definition of family
which includes brother cannot be read in
a fashion to exclude brother from
defined family members and throw him
and club him in the category of any other
member, who has been staying together
and has been dining together, in view of
this, the said portion of the Ram Murat's
Case (supra) is not being approved of.

Words and Phrases-work family used in
clause 2(o) of U.P. Sheduled commodities
Distribution order 2004-shall not override
the definition contained in para 4.7 of G.O.
03.07.1990.
Held: Para-53
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that
there is no conflict whatsoever in between
the provisions of Clause 2 (o) Clauses 30
and 31 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 vis.a.vis with the
definition
of
"family"
as
given
in
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
paragraph 4.7 and the Division Bench in
Ram Murat's case 2006 (5) ADJ 396,
defining the word "family" as given in
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990,
Paragraph 4.7 lays down the correct law,
even after enforcement of Control Order
2004, except to the extent of introducing
concept of joint residence and joint
kitchen in reference of Brother, whereas
the definition of family is clearly inclusive
of brother also and the definition of family
as given in Clause 2 (o) of U.P. Scheduled
Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 in
no way would override the definition of
family given in Paragraph 4.7 of the
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
and the said definition has to be read in
the context of issuance of ration cards and
nothing beyond the same.

Case Law discussed:
(2006) (5) ADJ 396; [(1987) 1 SCC 424;
2006(3) SCC 434; AIR 2007 SC 2458; 2013(1)
scale 7; 2002(3) SCC 481; AIR 1962 All 240.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)

1. For getting an authoritative
pronouncement,
as
to
whether
the
definition of family as interpreted in the
case of Ram Murat and others Vs.
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Division,
Azamgarh and others reported in (2006)
(5) ADJ 396 is correct or not, the matter
has been referred to this Full Bench for
answering the following two questions'

(i) Whether the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat
(supra), defining the word 'Family' as
given
in
Government
Order
dated
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3.7.1990 ( Para 4.7) lays down the correct
law specially after the enforcement of
order 2004 ?

(ii) Whether the definition of family
as given in Clause 2(o) of U.P. Scheduled
Commodities Distribution Order,2004,
shall override the definition of family
given in para 4.7 of Government order
dated 3.7.1990 ?

2. The factual background in which
the aforementioned issues have been
raised are that petitioner of present writ
petition was appointed as a fair price shop
dealer in the year 1993. Petitioner's son
Raj Bahadur was elected as Pradhan in
the year 2010. A show cause notice dated
5th November, 2012 was issued to the
petitioner to show cause as to why the
shop be not cancelled, since, he is running
the shop, living in the joint family, and his
son has been elected as Pradhan.
Petitioner submitted reply to the show
cause notice dated 31.1.2013 and same
was followed by the order dated 3rd
April, 2013 by which petitioner's fair
price shop agreement has been cancelled.

3. Petitioner at this juncture has
approached this Court questioning the
validity of the decision so taken cancelling
his fair price shop agreement on 3rd April,
2013 and his submission has been to the
effect that petitioner's son is living
separately and cannot be treated to be a
member of family and, accordingly, ground
on the basis of which petitioner's fair price
shop has been cancelled is unsustainable.
Petitioner's submission has been to the
effect that the definition of family as given
in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
and as has been interpreted in Ram Murat's
case (supra) does not take into consideration
Clause 2 (o) and further Clauses 30 and 31
of
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004, in its correct
reference and correct perspective and, in
view of this, the definition of family
contained in Government Order dated 3rd
July, 1990 has to be accepted as superseded
and effaced after the enforcement of U.P.
Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,
2004. The Division Bench of this Court
noticed the arguments raised from the side
of petitioner and proceeded to refer the
matter
in
the
direction
of
getting
authoritative pronouncement.

4. Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel
for the petitioner, opened his arguments by
contending that the Division Bench's
judgment in the case of Ram Murat (supra)
by accepting the definition of the word
'family' as given in Government Order dated
3rd July, 1990 paragraph 4.7 has not at all
laid down the correct law after enforcement
of
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution Order,2004 wherein a different
concept and a different definition has been
introduced in the shape of "house hold"
which is synonyms to "family" and in such
a situation definition of family as mentioned
in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
has to be accepted as effaced and,
accordingly, by placing reliance on the
definition of family as given in paragraph
4.7 of Government Order dated 3rd July,
1990, such a punitive action could not have
been taken, as has been done in the present
case and the issue in question ought to have
been dealt with on the parameters of the
definition
of
"household",
which
is
synonymus to family as is provided under
Clause 2 (o) of in U.P. Scheduled
Commodities Distribution Order,2004, as
same has the overriding effect over the
definition of family given in paragraph 4.7
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
9
of the Government Order dated 3rd July,
1990 and, as such, reference in question
should be answered in favour of petitioner
and the view as taken by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ram
Murat's case be reversed in total and entire
doubts on the subject be removed.

5. Countering the said submission
Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya, Chief Standing
Counsel appearing with Shri S.M. Iqbal
Hasan, Advocate contended that petitioner
is labouring under a misconception and the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ram Murat (supra) has taken rightful view
except at a place where ''brother' has been
sought to be excluded and it has been
submitted by him that the definition as
given in Clause 2 (o) of in U.P. Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution
Order,2004
describing "household" in no way would
override or efface the definition of family
given in paragraph 4.7 of the Government
Order dated 3rd July, 1990, inasmuch as, at
both the places definition in question is in
all together different context and under
different scheme of things and, in view of
this, the reference in question is to be
answered in negative by taking the view
that Division Bench of this Court in Ram
Murat's Case (supra) has rightly been
decided and the definition of family given
in paragraph 4.7 of the Government Order
dated 3rd July, 1990 should be read in its
entirety which should be inclusive of
''brother' also as well as other members,
who are found to be dining in the same
kitchen and, in view of this, purposive and
contextual construction should be made, as
in case the arguments so advanced by
petitioner is accepted then it would render
the other provisions redundant and otiose
and would defeat the very purpose for
which it has been introduced.

6. In order to appreciate the respective
arguments, as has been advanced and
canvassed before this Court, this Court
proceeds to take note that the Parliament
has enacted the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 and Section 3 of the said Act
empowers the Central Government to enact
different control orders for controlling
production, supply, distribution etc. of
essential commodities and Section 5 of the
said Act empowers the Central Government
to delegate this power by notified order to
the State Government also and the Central
Government has, accordingly, in the said
direction delegated this power to the State
Governments for maintaining of supply of
food grains and other essential commodities
and for securing
of their equitable
distribution through fair price shops.

7. Under the aforesaid provision
State of Uttar Pradesh came up with the
Uttar Pradesh Food Grains & Other
Essential Articles Distribution Order,
1977, which has been published in U.P.
Gazette,
Extraordinary,
dated
3rd
December, 1977 and has been substituted
by First Amendment Order dated 4th
January,
1978,
and
under
the
aforementioned Control Order, Clause 2
dealt with the Definition clause and
therein Clause 2 (a) defined ''adult' as any
person who has completed the age of five
years and ''child' as any person who has
not completed that age. Clause 2 (b),
which
was
substituted
by
First
Amendment Order dated 4th January,
1978, defines the ''authorized retail
distributor' as a person appointed as
''Agent
(Retail)'
by
the
District
Magistrate, City Magistrate or Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
for
sale
of
Government
food
grains
and
other
essential articles. Clause 2 (d) defined
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
''other essential article' as a commodity
other than food grains specified in the
Schedule II appended to this order, which
is supplied or allotted by the State
Government for distribution to identity
card holders, as a price, fixed, from time
to time, by the Central or the State
Government or any other authority or
office of such Government or the
manufacturer, as the case may be, in
respect of such commodity. Clause 2 (h)
proceeds to define ''holder' in relation to
an identity card as a person whose name
or designation appears as such on that
identity card. Clause 2 (i) proceeded to
define ''house hold' means the collection
of individuals who normally eat food
prepared in the same kitchen. Clause 2 (j)
defined identity card, Clause 2 (k) defined
qualified resident. Clause 3 proceeded to
mention that sale shall be made only
through the authorized retail distributor.
Clause 8 deals with the preparation of
identity cards and therein a clear cut
mention was made that a Food Officer
may either of his motion or on an
application made to him by a qualified
resident issue or cause to be issued to
such resident for himself and his
household or establishment, if any, an
identity card authorizing purchase of food
grains
and
other
essential
articles.
Household thus has been used in the
context of issuance of identity card.

8. The State Government at the said
point of time took a policy decision vide
Government Order dated 28.07.1985
providing therein that in the matter of
allotment of fair price shop i.e. for being
appointed as authorized retail distributor,
the Pradhan and his family members
would be all together outside the zone of
consideration, as Pradhan has a major role
to play in effectuating distribution of
essential commodities. The Government
Order
dated
28.07.1985
imposing
restriction
on
being
appointed
as
authorized retail distributor, qua Pradhan
and his family members, has once again
been reiterated in Government Order
dated 10.01.1986.

9. Thereafter by means of notification
dated 31st August, 1989 U.P. Scheduled
Commodities (Regulation of Distribution)
Order, 1989 has been enforced as the State
Government in its wisdom and opinion had
thought it necessary and expedient for
maintaining supplies of food grains and
other
essential
commodities
and
for
securing its equitable distribution and
availability at fair price. The said control
order has been issued in exercise of its
powers under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities
Act,
1955
read
with
notification of Government of India in the
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
(Department of Food) published under GSR
800, dated 9th June, 1978 in the Ministry of
Industry and Civil Supplies (Department of
Civil Supplies and Cooperation), published
under Ka As 681 (A) and Ka Aa 682 (A)
dated 30th November, 1974 and all other
powers enabling on this behalf. The said
order in question has also been extended to
the whole of Uttar Pradesh and therein also
definition had been given in Clause 2.

10. The definition of ''adult' in
Clause 2 (a) was the same as was
provided for in the 1977 Control Order. In
the 1989 Control Order, Clause 2 (f)
defines holder in relation to an identity
card and Clause 2 (g) defines household.
The definition of holder is one and the
same, as is provided for under the 1977
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
11
Control Order, mentioning therein that
holder in relation to identity card means the
person whose name or designation appears
as such on the identity card and household
here has been defined as individuals who
are held together in the same house and
normally eat food prepared in the same
kitchen. Earlier under 1977 Control Order,
household has been described as collection
of individuals who normally eat food
prepared in the same kitchen.

11. The said control order then
defines the ''identity card' in Clause 2 (h),
''qualified resident' in Clause 2 (i), Clause
9 deals with preparation of identity card
and here it has been clearly provided that
Food Officer may either of his motion or
of an application made to him by a
qualified resident issue or cause to be
issued to such resident for himself and his
household or establishment, if any, an
identity card authorizing purchase of
Scheduled Commodities. Clause 10 dealt
with the contents of identity card by
providing that Food Officer shall prepare
or cause to be prepared an identity card
correctly with clearly marked on it the
name and the address of the identity card
holder, the number of persons of the
household or establishment and the name
or
some
other
indication
of
the
Authorized Retail Distributor from whom
the identity card holder is entitled to
purchase Scheduled Commodities.

12. The U.P. Food Grains and Other
Essential Articles Distribution Order, 1977
published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary
dated 3rd December, 1977 and the U.P.
Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of
Distribution) Order, 1989 published in
gazette vide notification dated 31st August,
1989 have been repealed and the provisions
of Sections 6, 8 and 24 of the General
Clauses
Act,
1897
has
been
made
applicable as they apply in relation to the
repeal and re-enactment of Central Act by
introducing U.P. Scheduled Commodities
Distribution
Order,
1990.
The
State
Government has proceeded to issue the
same once again for maintaining supplies of
food grains and other essential commodities
and for securing equitable distribution and
availability of the same on fair price. The
same has been framed under Section 3 of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act
No. X of 1955) read with notification of
Government of India in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of
Food) published under GSR 800, dated 9th
June, 1978 in the Ministry of Industry and
Civil
Supplies
(Department
of
Civil
Supplies and Cooperation), published under
Ka As 681 (A) and Ka Aa 682 (A) dated
30th November, 1974 and all other powers
enabling on this behalf.

13.

Under
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities Distribution Order, 1990,
Clause 2 (b) defines the ''adult' in the
same way and manner, as has been
described in the past, Clause 2 (c) defines
the ''agent' as one who is authorized to run
fair price shop whereas on the earlier
occasion in 1977 Control Order as well as
in the 1989 Control Order in place of
agent
the
word
''Authorized
Retail
Distributor' has been used and same
proceeds to mention that it means a
person appointed as agent by the District
Magistrate, City Magistrate or Sub
Divisional Magistrate for sale of food
grains and other essential commodities.
Clause 2 (g) again borrows the same
definition as has been provided under
Control Orders of 1977 and 1989 by
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defining the holder in relation to an
identity card as a person whose name or
designation appears as such on that
identity card, Clause 2 (h) defines
household in the same way and manner as
has been defined in the Control Order of
1977 as collection of individuals who
normally eat food prepared in the same
kitchen, Clause 2 (i) defines identity card
means a card issued under Clause 5 of this
order, Clause 2 (k) defines the qualified
resident as a resident of an area to which
this order extends and authorized under
general or special order to receive identity
card on behalf of himself or a household
or an establishment. Clause 3 and 4 deals
with the setting up of fair price shop and
running of fair price shop, relevant extract
of the same is quoted below;

"3. Setting up of fair price shop -
With a view to effecting fair distribution
of Scheduled Commodities the State
Government may issue directions to setup such number of fair price shops in an
area as it deems fit.

4.Running of fair price shop - (1) A
fair price shop shall be run through such
person and in such manner as the
Collector subject to the directions of the
State Government, may order.

(2) A person appointed to run a fair
price shop under sub-clause (1) shall act
as the agent of the State Government."

14. A bare perusal of those
particular provisions of Clause 3 and 4
would go to show that with a view to
effectuate fair distribution of Scheduled
Commodities, the State Government has
been conferred an authority to issue
direction for setting up such number of
fair price shop in an area as it deems fit and
the said fair price shop are to be run through
such person as the Collector subject to
direction of the State Government may
order and the person so appointed to run fair
price shop is to act as agent of State
Government. The State Government under
the scheme of things provided for has ample
authority to take decision as to in what way
and manner the fair price shop is to be setup and is to be run.

15. The State Government on 3rd
July, 1990 has accordingly proceeded to
formulate a scheme as per which fair
price shop are to be opened and therein a
full fledged procedure has been provided
for as per which the said fair price shop
are to be run and managed. The said
Government Order in question has clearly
proceeded to provide for that, in the
matter of opening of fair price shops, the
family member/relatives of Pradhan or
Up-pradhan would not at all be given fair
price shop. Clause 4.7 of the said
Government Order reads as follows;

"4.7. xzke iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku ds ifjokj ds
lnL;ksa@lacaf/k;ksa ds i{k esa mfpr nj dh nqdku ds
vkcaVu dk izLrko ugh fd;k tk;sxkA ifjokj dh
ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh ------- Lo;a L=h]
iq=] vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk] firk] HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ
lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk
cuk [kkuk [kkrk gks"

16. The said Government Order in
question clearly restricts the field of being
authorized to run fair price shop qua
Pradhan/Up-pradhan
and
his
family
member as defined, plus such members
who stays together and eats food prepared
in common kitchen. Accordingly under
the 1990 Government Order a person who
was elected as Pradhan/Up-pradhan and
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
13
his family members and other members
residing and dining with him were
prohibited
from
getting
license
for
running of fair price shop. Subsequent to
the same, this particular Government
Order has been modified by Government
Order dated 18.07.2002, and by means of
such modification, so introduced, the
license of fair price shop has to be
cancelled, in case the licensee or his
family members as mentioned therein are
elected as Pradhan/Up-pradhan. Relevant
extract of Government Order dated
18.07.2002 is as follows;

^^izs"kd]

Jh [katu yky]

izeq[k lfpo]

m0iz0 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr ftykf/kdkjh]

m0iz0A

[kk| jln vuqHkkx&6 y[kuÅ fnukad 18
tqykbZ] 2002

fo"k;& lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds varxZr
xzkeh.k {ks= esa mfpr nj ds nqdkunkjksa dk p;uA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr
fo"k;d
'kklukns'k
la[;k&,Q
3967@29&[k&6&fnukad 03 tqykbZ] 1990 dk d`i;k
lanHkZ xzg.k djsaA

2& bl laca/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkar
v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd
mDr 'kklukns'k ds izLrj&4-7 ds vkxs izLrj&4-7 v
fuEukuqlkj tksM+ fn;k x;k gS%&

^^;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ;k mlds ifjokj ds
fdlh lnL; dks ftldh ifjHkk"kk izLrj&4-7 esa nh
xbZ gS iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku pqu fy;k tkrk gS rks
mldh nqdku dk vkoaVu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA

3& d`i;k mDr 'kklukns'k bl lhek rd
la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A

17. Earlier, Pradhan/Up-pradhan and
his family members were prohibited from
getting shop for distribution of scheduled
commodities, and by means of subsequent
modification, in case of being elected as
Pradhan/Up-pradhan, the license of fair
price shop of Pradhan/Up-pradhan or his
family
members
and
members
as
mentioned therein has to be necessarily
cancelled, as on being elected, same has
to be treated as a disqualification to run a
fair price shop.

18. Under Control Order of 1990,
Clause 5 deals with the preparation of
identity card and Clause 6 deals with the
contents of identity card and therein a
clear cut mention has been made that the
Food Officer shall prepare or cause to be
prepared an identity card correctly with
clearly marked on it the name and the
address of the identity card holder, the
number of persons of the household or
establishment and the name or some other
indication of the agent from whom the
identity card holder is entitled to purchase
Scheduled Commodities.

19. Subsequent to the same State
Government once again substituted the
U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution
Order, 1990, by issuing a new order in the
year 2004 commonly termed as U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution
Order, 2004, and therein with the same
objective the State Government formed
opinion that for maintaining of supply of
food
grains
and
other
essential
commodities and for securing of their
equitable distribution and availability at
fair prices, in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1955) read with order of the Government
of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution, Department
of
Food
and
Public
Distribution,
published under GSR 630 (E), dated
August 31, 2001 and all other powers
enabling him on this behalf.

20. The said control order in
question proceeded to retain the same
definition of adult but in clause 2 (b) it
was mentioned that ''adult' or a ration unit
means any person who has completed the
age of five years and ''child' or a half
ration unit means any person who has not
attained the age of five years. For the first
time under the aforementioned control
order pursuant to Public Distribution
System (Control) Order 2001, framed by
Central Government, in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 3 of
Essential Commodities Act, concept of
identification of families below poverty
line (BPL) by the State Government has
been introduced, and same also inheres in
itself
concept
of
identification
of
Antyodaya families, and in the said
direction State Governments have been
asked to formulate suitable guidelines.
Clause 14 of the said Control Order, has
an overriding effect, as it proceeds to
mention, that the provisions of the order
shall have effect notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in any order
made by a State Government or by an
officer of such State Government.

21. Toeing the lines of Public
Distribution System Control Order, 2001,
provision
has
been
introduced
for
identifying
''Antyodaya
families'
by
defining Antyodaya families' in Clause 2
(d) those poor families from amongst
Below the Poverty Line (BPL) families
identified by a ''Food Officer' and entitled
to
receive
food
grains
under
the
Antyodaya Anna Yojana' and Clause 2 (e)
defines the ''APL' as those families who
have been issued Above Poverty Line
ration cards under this order, Clause 2 (g)
defines ''BPL' as those families who have,
under
the
guidelines
of
the
State
Government, been identified by a Food
Officer for issue of food grains at
specially subsidized rates, and again the
definition of ''Holder' and ''Household' in
Clause 2 (n) and (o), has been provided in
the same way and manner, as has been
dealt with in the past, holder has been
defined as a person whose name or
designation appears as such on that ration
card and household means the collection
of individuals who normally eat food
prepared in the same kitchen. Clause 2 (p)
defines ''Ration Card', Clause 2 (q)
defines ''Person', Clause 2 (r) defines
''Qualified Resident' means a person
resident of any part of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and authorized under general or
special order of the State Government for
the time being in force, to receive ration
card on behalf of himself or a household
or an establishment, Clause 2 (s) defines
''Regional Food Controller' and Clause 2
(t) defines ''Scheduled Commodity'.

22. Clause 3 and 4 deals with the
setting up of fair price shop and running
of fair price shop, relevant extract of the
same is quoted below;

"3. Setting up of fair price shop -
With a view to effecting fair distribution
of Scheduled Commodities the State
Government may issue directions under
Section 3 of the Act to set-up such number
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
15
of fair price shops in an area and in the
manner as it deems fit.

4.Running of fair price shop - (1) A
fair price shop shall be run through such
person and in such manner as the
Collector, subject to the directions of the
State Government, may decide.

(2)A person appointed to run a fair
price shop under sub-clause (1) shall act
as the agent of the State Government.

(3)A person appointed to run a fair
price shop under sub-clause (1) shall sign
an agreement, as directed by the State
Government regarding running of the fair
price shop as per the draft appended to
this order before the competent authority
prior to the coming with effect of the said
appointment."

23. This particular provision of
setting up of fair price shop and running
of fair price shop is also on the same line
as it was there in the Control Order of
1990, as here also a fair price shop is to
be run and managed through such a
person and in such a manner, as the
Collector may decide subject to the
directions of the State Government and
once again it has been clarified that a
person appointed to run a fair price shop
under sub-clause (1) shall act as the agent
of the State Government and further a
person appointed to run a fair price shop
under sub-clause (1) shall sign an
agreement, as directed by the State
Government regarding running of the fair
price shop as per the draft appended to the
order before the competent authority prior
to the coming with effect of the said
appointment. Thus the earlier provision in
pith and substance has been incorporated.
Clause 5 deals with the identification of
families living below the poverty line.
Clause 6 deals with ration card and
proceeds to mention that Food Officer
shall ensure that no qualified resident is
denied a ration card under this order and
Food Officer is to ensure issuance of
distinctive ration cards to APL, BPL and
Antyodaya families in accordance with
the orders issued by the State Government
from time to time. Sub-clause (3) of
Clause 6 proceeds to mention that the
designated authority on being directed by
the Food Officer is to issue a ration card
of appropriate category within one month
of the date of receipt of the application
after necessary checks and verification
but only after the approval of the Food
Officer, Sub-clause (4) of Clause 6 deals
with contents of ration card and requires
that same should have clearly marked on
the same, the name, sex, age, address,
occupation of holders, the number of
persons residing with the holder including
their name, age, sex, occupation and
relationship with the holder alongwith
other essential details of the agent from
whom the holder is entitled to purchase
scheduled commodities.

24. Clauses 30 and 31 deals with the
savings and provisions of the order to
prevail over previous order of State
Government, which is hereby quoted
below;

"30. Savings - Any act performed
under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Scheduled Commodities Order, 1990,
which is hereby repealed prior to
commencement of this order, shall be
deemed to have been validly performed
under the provisions of this order.

31. Provisions of the order to prevail
over previous orders of State Government
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
- The provisions of this order shall have
effect notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any order made by the
State Government before the commencement
of this order excepts, as respects anything
done, or omitted to be done thereunder
before such commencement."

25. On the parameters of the
provisions noted above the arguments, as
have been advanced qua the questions
raised are being examined as to whether,
after the enforcement of 2004 Order, the
judgment of Division Bench in the case of
Ram Murat, defining the word "family" as
given in Government Order dated 3rd
July, 1990, Paragraph 4.7 lays down the
correct law, and as to whether the
definition of family as given in Clause 2
(o) of 2004 Order, overrides the definition
of family given in Paragraph 4.7 of
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990.

26. Concept of "household" is there
right from the beginning, inasmuch as, the
definition of "household" finds place in
the Control Order of 1977 as collection of
individuals
who normally
eat
food
prepared in the same kitchen. Similar
definition of household is there in the
Control Order of 1989 with slight
modification,
by
mentioning,
where
individuals who are held together in the
same house and normally eat food in the
same kitchen and in 1990 Control Order
the same definition in question has been
incorporated as it has been in 1977
Control
Order
i.e.
collection
of
individuals who normally eat food in the
same kitchen. Once again at the point of
time when Control Order of 2004 has
been introduced, same definition of
household as mentioned in 1977 Control
Order and 1990 Control Order has been
reiterated i.e. "household" means the
collection of individuals who normally eat
food prepared in the same kitchen.

27. "Household" under the scheme of
things provided for has always been used in
reference to holder of a ration card and in
the matter of preparation of ration card,
inasmuch as, it has to be ensured by the
Food Officer that such a card is issued to
qualified resident for himself and his
household or establishment, authorizing
purchase of food grains and other essential
articles. Once ration card in question is
issued to a resident for himself and his
household or establishment and the said
ration card in question has to carry on it the
name and address of card holder, the
number of persons of the household with
their name and relationship with the holder,
and the name of the authorized retail
distributor from whom the card holder is
entitled to purchase food grains and other
essential commodities and based on the said
ration card, based on unit, once food grain
and
other
essential
commodities
are
purchased by the holder from the authorized
retail distributor and the ultimate destination
of said essential commodity is the kitchen
of the holder, then in the said context,
household has to be understood as the
collection of individuals who normally eat
food prepared in the same kitchen.

28. At the point of time when Control
Order of 1990 has been introduced the
definition of household has been there as
collection of individuals who normally eat
food prepared in the same kitchen but the
State Government in its wisdom in the matter
of setting up of fair price shop and running of
fair price shop has not at all proceeded to
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
17
borrow the aforementioned definition of
'household' in question and to the contrary in
order to maintain transparency in Public
Distribution System and in order to avoid
conflict of interest, in exercise of its authority
vested under Clauses 3 and 4 of the U.P.
Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,
1990 framed Government Order dated 3rd
July, 1990 and therein a clear cut policy
decision was taken clearly providing therein
that the family members and relative of
Pradhan and Up-pradhan such as himself,
wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother,
father, brother or any other member who
stays together and has a common kitchen in
no eventuality shall be entitled to be
appointed as an agent to run fair price shop.
Said policy decision has been taken by the
State Government anticipating therein that
there would be conflict of interest in running
and managing the Public Distribution
System, as such, prohibition should be
imposed on such incumbent being engaged
as agent. The definition of family, under
Paragraph 4.7 of Government Order dated
3rd July, 1990 is specific, as it clearly
proceeds to define family in the context of
prohibition
being
imposed
upon
Pradhan/Up-pradhan
and
their
family
members and other members staying and
dining together in being appointed as
authorized retail dealer. Family has been
defined as self, wife, son, unmarried
daughter, mother, father, brother or any other
member who stays together and takes meal
cooked in one kitchen. This particular
definition is extensive as it takes within its
fold the closest of relations such as self, wife,
son, unmarried daughter, mother father,
brother and even those members have been
taken within the fold of family i.e. who stay
together and mess in a common kitchen.

29. The State Government acquired
knowledge that various incumbents in spite
of the fact that they were fair price shop
agents
their
family
members/relatives
falling within the prohibited category as
provided under paragraph 4.7 of the
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990,
have been contesting the elections and have
been winning the same and such a situation
has been leading to conflict of interest and,
in view of this, the State Government on
18th July, 2002 in order to remedy such a
situation
has
proceeded
to
issue
Government
Order
and
has
clearly
mentioned therein that in case any
shopkeeper or his family member, who has
been defined in paragraph 4.7 of the
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990, is
elected as Pradhan or Up-pradhan, then his
shop in question would be cancelled.

30. The said provisions in question
would go to show that in the matter of
setting up of fair price shop and running of
fair price shop there has been a deliberate
departure made by the State Government in
the matter of defining family so that all
those incumbents who fall within the
definition of family know this fact as a
matter of course that they cannot be
appointed as Agent and this much has also
been clarified that even if they are elected
subsequent to the same, then also the shop
in question would be cancelled. The State
Government being conscious of such a
situation that in the matter of setting up of
shop and running of fair price shop
anomalous situation would be created by
people with vested interest by placing
reliance on the definition of household as
collection of individuals who normally eat
food prepared in the same kitchen only,
then there would be room for manipulation
and maneuvering has taken a deliberate
departure in the matter of defining family
by specifically including self, wife, son,
unmarried daughter, mother father, brother
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and apart from this any other member who
stays together and has a common mess, has
also been included. Definition of family is
of wider amplitude here as specific family
members as well as other members who fall
within the definition of household have also
been included therein who not only dine but
reside also. Wider and specific relationship
has deliberately been used in order to make
the scope of defined word correspondingly
wider and precise.

31. "Household" and "family" in the
present case has to be interpreted and
understood in the context in which they
have been used.

32. In Francis Bennion's Statutory
Interpretation, purposive construction has
been described as under :

"A purposive construction of an
enactment is one which gives effect to the
legislative purpose by (a) following the
literal meaning of the enactment where
that meaning is in accordance with the
legislative purpose (in this Code called a
purposive-and-literal construction), or (b)
applying a strained meaning where the
literal meaning is not in accordance with
the legislative purpose (in the Code called
a purposive-and-strained construction)."

33. In 'The Interpretation and
Application
of
Statutes'
by
Reed
Dickerson, the author at p.135 has
discussed the subject while dealing with
the importance of context of the statute in
the following terms:

"... The essence of the language is to
reflect, express, and perhaps even affect
the conceptual matrix of established ideas
and values that identifies the culture to
which it belongs. For this reason,
language has been called "conceptual
map of human experience".'

34. In Reserve Bank of India v.
Peerless General Finance and Investment
Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424] Apex Court
stated as follows:

"..............If a statute is looked at, in
the context of its enactment, with the
glasses of the statute-maker, provided by
such context, its scheme, the sections,
clauses, phrases and words may take
colour and appear different than when the
statute is looked at without the glasses
provided by the context. With these
glasses we must look at the Act as a whole
and discover what each section, each
clause, each phrase and each word is
meant and designed to say as to fit into
the scheme of the entire Act.............."

35. In the case of Bombay Dyeing &
Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental
Action Group and others 2006 (3) SCC 434
Apex Court after noticing the principle of
purposive construction concluded as follows;

"It is well-settled principle of law that
in the absence of any context indicating a
contrary intention, the same meaning would
be attached to the word used in the latter as
is given to them in the earlier statute. It is
trite that the words or expression used in a
statute before and after amendment should
be given the same meaning. When the
legislature uses the same words in a similar
connection, it is to be presumed that in the
absence of any context indicating a
contrary intention, the same meaning
should attach to the words."
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
19

36. Apex Court in the case of
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs.
M/s.