# Smt. Kusumlata v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 786
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-29
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21935 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kusumlata-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47506
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Fair price shop - Control Order, 2016
- GO dated 05.08.2019 - Clause IV, Subclause (10) - Compassionate allotment
was claimed by the married daughter -
Word 'married daughter' is excluded
from
the
word
'family'
-
Validity
challenged
-
Parity
with
the
compassionate
appointment
under
Dying-in-Harness-Rules
claimed
-
Reason to exclude the married daughter
explained - Held, purpose for excluding
the married daughter from the canopy of
family under the Control Order of 2016
is that a fair price shop runs upon a
license granted by the St. agencies in
favour of a dealer pursuant to which an
agreement is executed - Once the
daughter is married outside the village
and resides in a different matrimonial
village the dealership cannot be granted
to
her
under
the
compassionate
allotment
on
the
death
of
her
father/mother as it is not possible for
her to run the shop and distribute the
essential
commodities
to
the
card
holders residing at her paternal village -
High
Court
distinguished
the
compassionate appointment under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 25, 27
and 28)
B. Constitution of India - Article 21 and
47 - Fundamental Right - Right to food
- Supply of food-grains - Protection -
Held, the Government as well as the
Apex Court have recognized that right to
food is part of Article 21 of the
Constitution - The dealership of fair
price shop is given by the St. for
ensuring the supply of foodgrains by the
Government of India as well as the St.
Government to the citizens fulfilling the
object of Article 47 of the Constitution
of India - In case, dealership is given to
an outsider who is unable to run the fair
price shop due to his/her unavailability
the very purpose for enacting the Act of
2013 and Control Order of 2016 would
be rendered otiose. (Para 26 and 33)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2021-2022) within the time specified on the
said portal and after downloading the hard
copies of the same, she submits the same
before administration of the respondentcollege,
the
respondent-college
shall
forward the same to the respondentUniversity, in case there is no legal
impediment. On receipt of the same, the
University, after completing necessary
formalities shall issue online admit card of
the petitioner on its portal, so that the
petitioner may download the same and
appear in M.A. final year examination for
the academic session 2021-2022.
----------
(2022)01ILR A786
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 21935 of 2021

Smt. Kusumlata ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Fair price shop - Control Order, 2016
- GO dated 05.08.2019 - Clause IV, Subclause (10) - Compassionate allotment
was claimed by the married daughter -
Word 'married daughter' is excluded
from
the
word
'family'
-
Validity
challenged
-
Parity
with
the
compassionate
appointment
under
Dying-in-Harness-Rules
claimed
-
Reason to exclude the married daughter
explained - Held, purpose for excluding
the married daughter from the canopy of
family under the Control Order of 2016
is that a fair price shop runs upon a
license granted by the St. agencies in
favour of a dealer pursuant to which an
agreement is executed - Once the
daughter is married outside the village
and resides in a different matrimonial
village the dealership cannot be granted
to
her
under
the
compassionate
allotment
on
the
death
of
her
father/mother as it is not possible for
her to run the shop and distribute the
essential
commodities
to
the
card
holders residing at her paternal village -
High
Court
distinguished
the
compassionate appointment under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 25, 27
and 28)
B. Constitution of India - Article 21 and
47 - Fundamental Right - Right to food
- Supply of food-grains - Protection -
Held, the Government as well as the
Apex Court have recognized that right to
food is part of Article 21 of the
Constitution - The dealership of fair
price shop is given by the St. for
ensuring the supply of foodgrains by the
Government of India as well as the St.
Government to the citizens fulfilling the
object of Article 47 of the Constitution
of India - In case, dealership is given to
an outsider who is unable to run the fair
price shop due to his/her unavailability
the very purpose for enacting the Act of
2013 and Control Order of 2016 would
be rendered otiose. (Para 26 and 33)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Writ C No. 60881 of 2015; Smt. Vimla
Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr. decided on
04.12.2015
2. Writ-A No. 10928 of 2020; Manjul Srivastava
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 15.12.2020
3. K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired) & anr.(AADHAAR)
Vs U.O.I. & anr.(2019) 1 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)
1 All. Smt. Kusumlata Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787

1. The question before this Court for
consideration is whether married daughters
can
be
considered/eligible
for
compassionate allotment of dealership of a
fair price shop on the death of their
father/mother to whom the license to run
fair price shop was originally granted by
the State.

2. The challenge made in this writ
petition
is
for
declaring
the
word
"unmarried" as unconstitutional from the
definition of family prescribed under Subclause (10) of Clause IV of the Government
Order dated 05.08.2019 bearing No.
6/2019/1358/29.06.2019-162 सा0/2001.

3. Facts, in brief, as narrated is that
one Nekram, father of the petitioner, was
granted license by the district authorities to
run the fair price shop at Village Newadi
Khurd, Nyay Panchayat Aheripur, Block
Maheva,
Pargana
Bharthana,
District
Etawah in the year 2005. Unfortunately, he
passed away on 15.02.2021 leaving behind
his wife Suman Devi, three minor sons and
four daughters. Smt. Suman Devi, the
widow, applied for the grant of license
under compassionate allotment in view of
the Government Order dated 05.08.2019.
She was informed that as she was not
having the requisite qualification, she was
not entitled for the appointment as dealer of
fair price shop under the government order
as Sub-rule 3 of Rule IV provides for
eligibility.

4. Facing with financial problem she
made an application that dealership may be
allotted to her daughter, present petitioner,
on 26.05.2021, as she is dully qualified as
per the government order. The said
application is pending consideration
before the authorities.

5. Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel
for the petitioner, submitted that the
definition of word ''family' under the
Government
Order
dated
05.08.2019
excludes married daughter and only the
unmarried
daughter,
legally
separated
daughter and widowed daughter is included
for the grant of compassionate allotment in
case of death of original licensee, which
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

6. He submitted that a married
daughter cannot be excluded from the
definition of family as well as under the
category of daughters, and State cannot
make any such distinction between the
daughter of a person under various
category such as unmarried, married,
legally separated and widow daughter. He
has relied upon the decision of Division
Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Vimla
Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Another
[Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015] decided on
04.12.2015 wherein this Court held that
exclusion of married daughters from the
ambit of expression "family" in Rule 2 (c)
of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter
referred as ''Dying-in-Harness Rules') is
illegal and unconstitutional being violative
of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Thus, the word "unmarried" in Rule 2 (c)
(III) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules was
struck down. Reliance has also been placed
upon a decision of coordinate Bench of this
Court in case of Manjul Srivastava Vs.
State of U.P. & Others [Writ-A No.
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10928 of 2020] decided on 15.12.2020
wherein this Court held as under;

"21.
The
severance
of
the
offending part has made the remainder of
Section 2(c) (iii) intra vires, purging it of
the vice of discrimination on the ground of
sex alone. What has remained back is a
workable provision and is to be understood
in the manner that a daughter, irrespective
of her marital status, is to be regarded as a
member of the deceased government
servant's family, in the same manner as a
son, whether married or unmarried. This
Court, therefore, holds that in the definition
of
the
deceased's
family,
the
word
''daughter' has to be read unqualified by
the marital status of the daughter and it
requires no further amendment to the Rules
by the Government to make the right of a
daughter of the deceased government
servant effective under the Rules. The
impugned order, therefore, passed on the
basis of a reading of Rule 2(c) (iii) of the
Rules with the word ''daughter' qualified by
the word ''unmarried' since struck down by
this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (and
followed in Neha Srivastava), is manifestly
illegal. It is so as it proceeds on the basis of
a statutory provision, that has been
declared unconstitutional and void by this
Court."

7. It was also submitted that in
Section 2 (II) of Code of Civil Procedure
1908 the word "legal representative"
means a person who in law represents the
estate of a deceased person, and includes
any person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased and where a party
sues or is sued in a representative
character the person on whom the estate
devolves on the death of the party so
suing or suied. According to him the
married
daughter
being
the
legal
representative
is
entitled
for
the
compassionate
allotment
and
the
government order cannot exclude and
make discrimination between the married
and an unmarried daughter.

8. Learned Standing Counsel,
vehemently opposing the writ petition,
submitted that the provision on which
reliance has been sought by the petitioner
is the Dying-in-Harness Rules, which is
applicable for the government servants.
The judgment of Division Bench in case
of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (Supra) was in
reference to the service matter wherein
the Court had struck down Rule 2 (c) (iii)
on the ground that it was violative of
Article 14 and 15, but in the present
scenario the father of petitioner was
granted license to run fair price shop in
the village in pursuance to the Control
Order which was prevalent at that time in
the State.

9. At present the State has enforced
the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Control Order, 2016') which has
been issued exercising the power under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "Act of
1955") as well as the National Food
Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
as "Act of 2013").

10. According to learned Standing
Counsel the dealer is appointed by the State
Government after an agreement is executed
between the district authorities and the
licensee to run the fair price shop. The
existence of dealership depends upon the
continuance of the license, which is not a
matter of right but its existence upon the
agreement executed between the parties.
1 All. Smt. Kusumlata Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
Once the agreement comes to an end no
one can claim as a matter of right to
continue to proceed with the license.

11. He further urged that petitioner
has been married and is residing at Village
and Post Rajpur, Tehsil Chakarnagar,
District Etawah, and thus not being the
resident of the same village where the fair
price shop exists, the license for dealership
cannot be granted. He further contended
that purpose for not including the married
daughters is for the reason that after
marriage the daughter leaves the village or
the district, where the fair price shop is
situated, and the object of setting up of fair
price shop is for supply of essential
commodities and foodgrains to the card
holders attached to the shop living in the
village or area, which cannot be run by a
person not residing in the same vicinity.

12. He further contended that license
for running the fair price shop is only
granted to the person residing in the village
where fair price shop is to be allotted.
Clause IV (5) of the Government Order
dated 05.08.2019 specifically provides that
the fair price shop is to be allotted only to a
local resident. As the petitioner herself has
disclosed that she is not the resident of the
village in which fair price shop exist and
the allotment has to be made, her claim
cannot be considered in the light of the
statutory provisions.

13. Having heard rival submissions
and perusal of record. Before proceeding to
decide the issue raised in the writ petition a
brief
background
in
respect
of
the
establishment and running of fair price
shop is necessary for better appreciation.
The Essential Commodities Act was
enacted with the object for control of
production, supply and distribution of
essential commodities.

14. Section 3 of Act of 1955 provided
power to the State Government to issue
order for controlling and regulating the
production, supply and distribution of the
essential commodities. It was in exercise of
this power under Section 3 of Act of 1955
that
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
(Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989
was issued.

15. Thereafter came the U.P.
Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order
1990 and Clause 24 of the Order provided
for ''rescission' of earlier Uttar Pradesh
Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles
Distribution Order, 1977 and Uttar Pradesh
Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of
Distribution) Order, 1989.

16. The U.P. Scheduled Commodities
Distribution Order 1990 occupied the field
for
regulating
and
controlling
the
distribution of essential commodities in the
State till it was superseded by Uttar
Pradesh
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 (hereinafter called
as "Order of 2004").

17. The Government of India in the
year 2013 implemented the National Food
Security Act keeping in mind Article 47 of
the Constitution of India, which mandates
the States with duty to raise the level of
nutrition and standard of living and to
improve public health. For the first time the
Government recognized the right to food of
an
individual.
The
Government
implemented Targeted Public Distribution
System under which foodgrains is provided
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the "eligible household" at subsidised
rates. Following the Act of 2013 National
Food
Security
Rules
2015
were
implemented and, thereafter, the State
Government also framed the U.P. State
Food Security Rules, 2015 exercising the
power under Section 40 of the Act of 2013.

18.

The
Central
Government
thereafter enacted "The Aadhaar (Targeted
Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies,
Benefits
and
Services)
Act,
2016
(hereinafter called as "Act of 2016") for
providing
good
governance,
efficient,
transparent, and targeted delivery of
subsidies,
benefits
and
services,
the
expenditure for which is incurred from the
Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals
residing in India through assigning of
unique identity numbers to such individuals
and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The validity of said Act
was challenged before Supreme Court of
India
in
case
of
K.S.Puttaswamy
(Retired) and Another (AADHAAR) vs.
Union of India and Another (2019) 1
SCC 1, and Apex Court upheld the validity
of Act of 2016.

19. After the enactment of Act of
2013, and Act of 2016, the State
Government having already framed the
Rules of 2015, came out with the Control
Order
2016
superseding
the
earlier
Government Order of 20.12.2004 as well as
all the Government Orders issued prior to
coming of this Order.

20. The Control Order of 2016 in
Clause 2 (b) defines the word "Agent", 2 (n)
"Fair Price Shop", 2 (o) "Fair Price Shop
Owner" and 2 (p) defines the "Family",
which are extracted here as under;

"2. Definitions.- In this order,
unless the contaxt otherwise requires,-

....

(b) "Agent" means a person or a
co-operative society or a corporation of the
State Government authorized to run a Fair
Price Shop under the provision of this
Order;

....

(n) "Fair Price Shop" means a
shop set up as directed by the State
Government
under
this
order
for
distribution of foodgrains, sugar, kerosene
oil etc. under various orders of Central and
State Government;

(o) "Fair Price Shop Owner"
means a person and includes a cooperative society authorized to run a fair
price shop appointed under provisions of
this order;

(p) "Family" means group of
following persons,-

- Head of the Family,

- Husband/wife, including legally
adopted children,

- Adult children, who are fully
dependent on the head of the family,

- Unmarried, legally separated
and widow daughters, and

- Fully dependent mother/Father
of the head of the family."
1 All. Smt. Kusumlata Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791

21. Pursuant to the Control Order of 2016
the State Government issued a Government
Order dated 05.08.2019 in regard to the
allotment of license of vacant fair price shop and
the reservation applicable therein. Sub-clause
(10) of Clause IV provides that the definition of
family as occurring in the Control Order of 2016
will also apply in case of the allotment of license
of vacant shop which is as under;

"ग्राम प्रधान के पररवार के सदस्ोां के
पक्ष में उदचत दर की दुकान के आवांटन का प्रस्ताव
नहीां दकर्ा जार्ेगा। पररवार की पररिाषा, जैसा दक
उ0 प्र आवश्यक वास्तु (दवतरण के दवदनर्मन का
दनर्ांत्रण ) आदेश २०१६ में दी गई है, दनम्नानुसार
होगी :-

- पररवार का मुस्खर्ा,

- पदत/पत्नी दवदधक रूप से अपनार्े गर्े
दत्तक सांतान सदहत।

- सांतान जो पररवार के मुस्खर्ा पर पूणय
रूप से आदश्रत हो।

- अदववादहत, दवदधक रूप से पृथक और
दवधवा बेटी, और

- पररवार के मुस्खर्ा पर पूणय रूप से
आदश्रत माता/दपता"

22. The definition of family occurring
in the Control Order of 2016 is not para
materia to the definition of family
occurring in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-inHarness Rules, which is extracted here as
under;

"2(c) "family" shall include the
following
relations
of
the
deceased
Government servant:

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Sons/adopted sons;

(iii)
Unmarried
daughters,
unmarried adopted daughters, widowed
daughters and widowed daughters-in-law;

(iv)
Unmarried
brothers,
unmarried sisters and widowed mother
dependent on the deceased Government
servant, if the deceased Government
servant was unmarried;

(v) aforementioned relations of
such missing Government servant who has
been declared as "dead" by the competent
Court;

Provided that if a person
belonging
to
any
of
the
above
mentioned relations of the deceased
Government servant is not available or
is found to be physically and mentally
unfit and thus ineligible for employment
in Government service, then only in
such situation the word "family" shall
also include the grandsons and the
unmarried
granddaughters
of
the
deceased
Government
servant
dependent on him."

23. Under the definition of family in
Dying-in-Harness Rules sons/adopted sons
have been included in the definition of
family whether they are dependent or not
upon the head of the family. While the
Control Order of 2016 takes care of the fact
that the family includes head of the family
alongwith all the children whether minor or
major, who are totally dependent upon the
head of the family, which includes both
sons and daughters.
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. There is no distinction under the
Control Order of 2016 between the sons
and daughters and all those persons who
are dependent upon the head of the family
are considered under the umbrella of
family. Interestingly, the dependent parents
i.e. father/mother of the head of the family
are also included in the definition which is
not there under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules.

25. The purpose for excluding the
married daughter from the canopy of
family under the Control Order of 2016 is
that a fair price shop runs upon a license
granted by the State agencies in favour of a
dealer pursuant to which an agreement is
executed. The dealer is an agent of the
State who is to help in distribution of
foodgrains and other essential commodities
to the card holders belonging to "eligible
household" and "Antyodaya household".

26. The dealership of fair price shop
is given by the State for ensuring the
supply of foodgrains by the Government of
India as well as the State Government to
the citizens fulfilling the object of Article
47 of the Constitution of India. The
dealership of fair price shop is not a vested
right and petitioner cannot claim it to be a
fundamental right to carry on such a
business, but the very existence of
dealership dependents upon the execution
of an agreement with the State authorities.

27. Once the daughter is married
outside the village and resides in a
different
matrimonial
village
the
dealership cannot be granted to her
under the compassionate allotment on
the death of her father/mother as it is not
possible for her to run the shop and
distribute the essential commodities to
the card holders residing at her paternal
village.

28. The parity claimed for recruiting
the dependents of government servants
under
Dying-in-Harness
Rules
is
distinguishable in the present set of case, as
the Division Bench of this Court found that
the Legislature had made distinction
between the sons and daughters, while the
married son was made eligible under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules for compassionate
appointment but the married daughter was
excluded from the zone of consideration.

29. Under the Control Order of 2016
no such distinction exists between the sons
and daughters and all the children who are
dependent upon the head of the family
including the father and mother of the head
of the family are embraced with the
definition of the word "family".

30. In Smt. Vimla Srivastava
(Supra) the Division Bench had beautifully
noticed the distinction which has been
made in our society between the son and
daughter. Relevant paragraphs are extracted
here as under;

"The issue before the Court is
whether marriage is a social circumstance
which is relevant in defining the ambit of
the expression "family" and whether the
fact that a daughter is married can
constitutionally be a permissible ground to
deny her the benefit of compassionate
appointment. The matter can be looked at
from a variety of perspectives. Implicit in
the definition which has been adopted by
the state in Rule 2 (c) is an assumption that
while a son continues to be a member of the
family and that upon marriage, he does not
cease to be a part of the family of his
father, a daughter upon marriage ceases to
be a part of the family of her father. It is
discriminatory
and
constitutionally
impermissible for the State to make that
1 All. Smt. Kusumlata Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
assumption and to use marriage as a
rationale for practicing an act of hostile
discrimination by denying benefits to a
daughter when equivalent benefits are
granted to a son in terms of compassionate
appointment. Marriage does not determine
the continuance of the relationship of a
child, whether a son or a daughter, with the
parents. A son continues to be a son both
before and after marriage. A daughter
continues
to
be
a
daughter.
This
relationship is not effaced either in fact or
in law upon marriage. Marriage does not
bring about a severance of the relationship
between a father and mother and their son
or between parents and their daughter.
These relationships are not governed or
defined by marital status. The State has
based its defence in its reply and the
foundation
of
the
exclusion
on
a
paternalistic notion of the role and status of
a woman. These patriarchal notions must
answer the test of the guarantee of equality
under Article 14 and must be held
answerable to the recognition of gender
identity under Article 15."

31. The Division Bench after noticing
the decisions of various High Courts in
respect of discrimination between different
sex had struck down the word "unmarried"
in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of Dying-in-Harness Rules
being unconstitutional and violative of
Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Relying on the said judgment coordinate
Bench of this Court in Manjul Srivastava
(Supra) had also taken similar view.

32. But the present dispute is in regard
to allotment of a dealership of fair price
shop on the death of father of petitioner,
who is married and residing at a different
village. The authorities had not refused to
grant
dealership
to
the
eligible
dependents of the deceased Nekram. The
argument raised by learned counsel as to
legal representative as provided in Section 2
(II) of the Code of Civil Procedure which
includes the petitioner does not have any
relevance in present scenario as the
existence of dealership arises out of an
agreement between the parties. Once the
agreement has come to an end on the death
of Nekram the license can only be granted
on fulfilling the conditions laid down in the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019. Subclause 5 of Clause IV categorically provides
that applicant has to be local resident.

33.

The
concept
of
allotting
dealership to a local resident is firstly that
he is acquainted with the most of the card
holders as they are living in same village
and secondly his availability in attending
and running the fair price shop. The
Government as well as the Apex Court
have recognized that right to food is part of
Article 21 of the Constitution. In case,
dealership is given to an outsider who is
unable to run the fair price shop due to
his/her unavailability the very purpose for
enacting the Act of 2013 and Control Order
of 2016 would be rendered otiose.

34. That Sub-clause 5 of Clause IV of
the government order of 2019 specifically
provides that applicant should be a local
resident. Petitioner is admittedly a resident of
a different village, and not of the village
where the fair price shop is to be allotted. The
validity of the said condition of the
government order has not been challenged in
the writ petition, and only challenge has been
made to declare the word "unmarried" as
unconstitutional from the definition of family
prescribed under Sub-clause 10 of Clause IV.
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. Once the government order
specifically provides the applicant to be the
resident of the same village where the shop
has to be allotted, no such allotment can be
made to an outsider. The argument of
petitioner's counsel that married daughter
should also be included in the definition of
the word "family", in the present scenario
cannot be accepted as the license is granted
only on the fulfillment of the conditions
prescribed under the government order of
2019. Petitioner being not able to fulfill the
essential conditions cannot be granted such
license.

36. More so, the Control Order of
2016 does not make any distinction
between the sons and daughters of a license
holder, as in case of Rule 2 (c) of the
Dying-in-Harness Rules. The definition of
family occurring in the Control Order of
2016 as well as the government order of
2019 embraces the word "dependant child",
which also includes the dependant father
and
mother.
Argument
that
married
daughter had been excluded creates gender
bias cannot be accepted, as the very
purpose is the distribution of food grains to
the card holders attached to the ration shop
situated in village. Once the daughter of a
licensee is married outside the village, she
cannot continue to run the fair price shop
and distribute ration. The sole purpose of
enacting the Act of 2013 and the Control
Order of 2016 is that the food reaches the
last person of the society and a licensee
being only an agent of the State through
which the target is achieved by both the
Central
Government
and
the
State
Government.

37. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that no ground is made for declaring the
word "unmarried" as unconstitutional from
the definition of family provided under
Sub-clause 10 of Clause IV of the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019.

38. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A794
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 22819 of 2021

Ram Gopal Chaturvedi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Sri Prakhar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Bharat
Pratap
Singh,
Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi

A. NCET Regulation, 2014 - Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) Course -
Admission - Eligibility criteria - Impugned
advertisement mentioned criteria different
from
the
criteria
required
under
Regulation of 2014 - Validity challenged -
Policy matter - Scope of interference -
Noting the submission of the St.'s counsel
that it is a policy matter and the policy
decisions of the St. are not to be
disturbed/interfered with unless they are
found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational,
the High Court directed the petitioner to
file representation before the authority
and further directed the authority to
decide it preferably within three months.
(Para 22 and 24)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)