# Muneem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-05-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 26195 of 2010
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/muneem-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41611
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(Distribution) Order 2004-Provisions of
G.O. Dated 12.08.08- providing allotment
of fair Price Shop-Giving preference to
blind person Village Gram Panchayat-if
not available such candidate-at block
level-blind persons-challenge made on
ground of disqualification by nature to
transport, maintain stock register and
proper distribution held-misconceivedprohibition contained in clause 26 of
Sub-agency but not about taking help of
family members friend or employee to
help such disable persons to run the fair
price shop.

Held: Para 12

The physically disabled persons are a
class by themselves. The provision for
reservation of distribution of scheduled
commodities under a Government grant
as a largesses, to the physically disabled
persons is both a social welfare measure
and an affirmative action in consonance
with Section 43 of the Act of 1995 to
rehabilitate
physically
disabled
(differently abled) persons in life. The
reservation
conforms
both
to
the
constitutional scheme and the provisions
of the Act of 1995 for disabled persons.
Case law discussed:
2009(14) SCC 546, (1995) 1 SCC 85, (2009) 4
SCC 798.

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
accept final report within three days after
receiving the copy of this order.

10. The petitioner Imran, who is
confined in jail in crime no. 997/2009,
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C.
And 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S., Chakeri, District,
Kanpur Nagar is directed to be released
from jail confinement forthwith.

This writ petition is allowed as above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE KASHI NATH PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 26195 of 2010

Muneem Ahmad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suresh Chandra Verma
Sri Deepak Gaur

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
(Distribution) Order 2004-Provisions of
G.O. Dated 12.08.08- providing allotment
of fair Price Shop-Giving preference to
blind person Village Gram Panchayat-if
not available such candidate-at block
level-blind persons-challenge made on
ground of disqualification by nature to
transport, maintain stock register and
proper distribution held-misconceivedprohibition contained in clause 26 of
Sub-agency but not about taking help of
family members friend or employee to
help such disable persons to run the fair
price shop.

Held: Para 12

The physically disabled persons are a
class by themselves. The provision for
reservation of distribution of scheduled
commodities under a Government grant
as a largesses, to the physically disabled
persons is both a social welfare measure
and an affirmative action in consonance
with Section 43 of the Act of 1995 to
rehabilitate
physically
disabled
(differently abled) persons in life. The
reservation
conforms
both
to
the
constitutional scheme and the provisions
of the Act of 1995 for disabled persons.
Case law discussed:
2009(14) SCC 546, (1995) 1 SCC 85, (2009) 4
SCC 798.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra
Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the
State respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged the reservation
for blind persons to run Fair Price Shops
under the Public distribution Scheme vide
Government orders dated 17.8.2002, as
clarified by Government order dated
12.8.2008
issued
under
the
U.P.
Scheduled Commodities (Distribution)
Order 2004. He has also challenged the
Government Order dated 12.8.2008in so
far it provides for reserving the Gaon
Sabhas filling up the backlog for such
disabled persons on priority by giving
first preference to blind persons, and to
select a person from the block, if no blind
person of the village applies for allotment.
The challenge is made on the ground that
a blind person cannot run the Fair Price
Shop. The petitioner has relied upon
definition of 'Agent' and 'Person' in the
Control Order and 3 & 4, and clause 26,
2 All] Muneem Ahmad V. State of U.P. and others
495
which prohibits the transfer of the agency
or appointment of sub-agent. Clause-2 (c),
clause (q), 3, 4 and clause 26 of the
Control Order 2004 are quoted as below:-

"2(c) "Agent" means a person or a
cooperative society or a Corporation of
the State Government authorised to run a
fair price shop under the provisions of
this order;

(q) "Person" means an individual, a
partnership firm, a Cooperative Society
or Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956;

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 such number of
fair price shops in an area and in the
manner as it deems fit.

4. Running of fair price- (1) A fair
price shop shall be run through such
person and in such manner as the
Collector, subject ot 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.

26. Ban on Transfer of Agency- No
person authorized as agent by the
competent officer shall appoint as subagent or transfer his agency to any other
person by any means whatsoever and no
person other than the person authorised
as agent shall carry on business either as
a sub-agent or as a transferee from the
agent or otherwise on behalf of such
agent."

3. It is submitted that a 'person'
defined in clause-2 (c) and clause 2 (q)
may include an individual, but that such
an individual, taking into account the
nature of the business activity of a Fair
Price Shop, cannot be a blind person.

4. It is submitted that a blind person
is not competent to manage and run a
shop. By the nature of his disability it will
be difficult for him to maintain store, the
stock of scheduled commodities, maintain
accounts and to do public dealing. The
multifarious activities of a fair price shop
keeper, including supplies in different
schemes
and
mid-day-meal
scheme
require a person running the shop to be
educated with full ability of all functions
of body and senses.

5. The 'blindness' is a class of
disability, with which a person may
unfortunately suffer, either from birth, or
on account of any disease or accident. In
all the cases of partial or total blindness, a
person is handicapped to perform, a few
functions in life, which a person endowed
with vision may be able to perform. A
blind person may be differently abled, but
he may be educated before he was blinded
or can learn and be educated thereafter.
The modern methods of learning for blind
persons allow them to read and write,
maintain accounts, work on computers,
and to acquire knowledge as efficiently as
normal persons. There are many examples
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
in the society, where blind persons are
successfully
running
business
and
carrying on professions. The blindness, as
a disability does not restrict all the
functions of normal life. The running of a
shop is certainly not such an activity.

6. It is contended that the
delimitation of the villages can be made
only on the ground of caste as it is
provided for the elections of the Gram
Pradhan. The reservation for physically
handicapped is not under the scheme of
distribution of the scheduled commodities
under the Public Distribution Scheme and
that by necessity the blind person will
either transfer or sublet the shop.

7.

The
Government,
while
distributing the largesses, can provide for
reservation for physically challenged
persons. The disability of a person, is not
a bar to the grant of agency to distribute
Scheduled Commodities under the Public
Distribution Schemes, either under the
Control Order or any other provision in
law. On the contrary the law permits such
reservations
from
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities,
Protection
of
Rights
and
Full
Participation) Act, 1995.

8. In Union of India vs. Devendra
Kumar Pant 2009 (14) SCC 546, the
Supreme Court observed that the Act of
1995, is enacted to extend helping hand to
persons with disabilities so that they can
lead self reliant life with dignity and
freedom.

9. In Mahinder Kumar Gupta and
others vs. Union of India, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas (1995) 1
SCC 85 the Supreme Court approved the
reservation in grant of dealership or
distributorship of petroleum products as
Government largesse prescribing the
eligibility criteria including physically
handicapped persons. The Supreme Court
relied upon Article 39 (b) of the
Constitution of India, which postulates
that the ownership and control of the
material resources of the community are
to be so distributed, as to best subserve
the common good. Clause (c) prevents
concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment.
Since
the
grant
of
dealership
or
distributorship of the petroleum products
belongs to the Government largesse. The
Government in its policy of granting the
largesse have prescribed the eligibility
criteria. In case of physically handicapped
persons only three classes of persons were
made ineligible in the guidelines. The
Supreme Court held that the physically
handicapped persons have to be treated as
a class by themselves and that any person
other than physically handicapped cannot
claim parity with such persons.

10. In Prajwala vs. Union of India
and others (2009) 4 SCC 798 the
Supreme Court in a public interest
litigation
is
monitoring
the
implementation of Section 43 of the
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 43
of the Act provides:-

"43.
Scheme
for
preferential
allotment of land for certain purposes-

The appropriate Governments and local
authorities shall by notification frame
schemes in favour of persons with
disabilities, for the preferential allotment
of land at concessional rates for-
2 All] Adhikari/Karamchari Samagra Vikas Samiti and another V. State of U.P. and others
497
(a) house;

(b) setting up business;

(c) Setting up of special recreation
centres;
(d) establishment of special schools;

(e)
establishment
of
research
centres;

(f) establishment of factories by
entrepreneurs with disabilities."

11. A direction has been issued in
Prajwala's case to the State Government
or local authorities for allotment of land,
for various purposes indicated in Section
43 of the Act and various items indicated
in it, for giving preferential treatment to
the disabled persons for allotment of land
at concessional rates.

12. The physically disabled persons
are a class by themselves. The provision
for
reservation
of
distribution
of
scheduled
commodities
under
a
Government grant as a largesses, to the
physically disabled persons is both a
social welfare measure and an affirmative
action in consonance with Section 43 of
the Act of 1995 to rehabilitate physically
disabled (differently abled) persons in
life. The reservation conforms both to the
constitutional scheme and the provisions
of the Act of 1995 for disabled persons.

13. Clause 26 of the Order of 2004,
prohibits sub-agency or transfer of the
agency. It does not prohibit taking help of
a family member, friend, or employing a
person to help the disabled person to run
the agency.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39797 of 2007

Adhikari/Karmchari
Samagra
Vikas
Samiti (U.P.) & another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Awadhesh Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri S.K. Shukla
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art.-226- read with
Art-75(15) of Article of Association of
company-Petitioner working as officer in
corporation-claiming Parity of retirement
age of State Govt. employees who retire
at the age of 60 yrs and the Professor
working in university up to the age of 65
yrs. In pursuance of interim order
worked
up-to
the
age
of
60
yrspetitioners purposely concealed this fact
regarding decision of Board of director
by which proposal for extension of age of
superannuation was turn down in view
of provision of Art. 75(15)-cannot be
allowed to work beyond 50 yrs-request
for non refund of salary drawn in
pursuance of interim order-also refused
considering the conduct of petitioner.

Held: Para 9 & 11

The age of retirement of its employees is
a policy matter to be decided by its
Board of Directors having the authority
to frame the service regulations. The
policy has to be based upon the financial
condition, recruitment policy and other