INDRAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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, 2006 5 ADJ 396 is correct or not, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench for answering the following two questions'

(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 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and, in view of this, the definition of family contained in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 has to be accepted as superseded and effaced after the enforcement of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004.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.