Allahabad High Court
Rituraj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2025
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45962
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8617 of 2025
Petitioner :- Rituraj Kumar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. The order dated 17.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, District Ballia, is under challenge in the present petition.
2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the grand-father of the petitioner namely Nanhku Ram was appointed as an agent of Fair Price Shop, he died on 30.10.2024. After his death the petitioner being the grandson of late Nanhku Ram, was looking after the entire family of the deceased, hence he submitted an application for allotment of fair price shop in his favour, the same was rejected by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, District Ballia vide its order dated 17.02.2025 on the ground that the grandson is not entitled for consideration of his case for appointment as fair price shop leader on compassionate ground since he does not fall within the definition of family as contained in the government order dated 05.08.2019.
3. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 04.12.2021 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 32296 of 2021 (Akansha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). The aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-
"Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 by which licence of fair price of petitioner was cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier grand father of petitioner, namely, Dharam Pal Singh was running fair price shop and no complaint has ever been lodged against him by any of the ration card holders. He next submitted that grand father of petitioner died on 31.12.2020. He further submitted that in the family of petitioner, there are four living persons; grand mother, mother and her sister. He further submitted that grand mother of petitioner is illiterate, therefore, she is not eligible to run fair price shop. Thereafter, mother of petitioner, namely, Smt. Mona Singh has submitted an application on 10.2.2021 before the respondent no.3 for allotment of fair price shop, which was rejected vide order dated 27.2.2021 on the ground that she does not come within the definition of family as provided in paragraph IV (10) of Government Order dated 5.8.2019. After rejection of application of her mother, petitioner came to know about the order of this Court of Lucknow Bench passed 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 this Court vide orders dated 20.7.2016 & 3.9.2020 accorded the benefit of Government Order dated 5.8.2019 to the grand son. Accordingly, being grand daughter of the deceased, petitioner has submitted an application on 12.7.2021 before the respondent no.3 alongwith No Objection Certificate of other family members for allotment of fair price shop, which was also rejected on the same ground that she does not come within the definition of family as provided in paragraph IV (10) of Government Order dated 5.8.2019. 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. Lastly, he submitted that controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by judgement of this Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar and Sunil Kumar Yadav (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 Standing Counsel though opposed, but could not disputed the legal submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
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 is grand daughter of deceased Dharam Pal Singh and her candidature was rejected only on the ground that grand daughter does not come within the definition of family member as defined in Government Order dated 5.8.2019. I have also perused the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and only difference is that in those petitions, petitions were filed by grand sons, whereas present petition is filed by grand daughter, but the ratio of law laid down by this Court shall be same and equally applicable in the case of grand daughter also.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of orders dated 20.7.2016 & 3.9.2020 passed in Misc. Single Nos. 2899 of 2015 & 13015 of 2020.
Respondent no. 3 is directed to verify the facts and if petitioner is grand daughter of deceased, she shall also be given same benefits, which is given to petitioners in the cases of Ashok Kumar and Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra)."
4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 17.02.2025 is liable to be set aside and a fresh order be directed to pass in view of judgment and order passed by this Court passed in Akansha Singh (Supra).
5. On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents that since the case of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of family as per Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019, his claim was rightly rejected by the respondent no. 2. Insofar as the judgment passed by this court in Akansha Singh (Supra), it is very fairly argued by Sri. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the respondent no. 2 will revisit the matter in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of finally directing the respondent no. 2 to revisit the order dated 17.02.2025 and pass afresh order in accordance with law taking into consideration of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Akansha Singh (Supra), expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that the order impugned will be subject to the final outcome of the present petition.
Order Date :- 2.4.2025
Arti
