RANJANA MURLIDHAR ANERAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the expression "family" for being entitled to be considered for grant of retail kerosene license under Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2004 can be said to be legal and valid.

(2.) The factual background which gives rise to the aforesaid question is that one Godavaribai Jairam Jadhav was holding a retail kerosene license issued to her under provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Retail Dealers' Licensing Order, 1979 (for short, the Licensing Order of 1979). She expired on 9th April, 2003 and was survived by her son respondent No.4 and daughter the petitioner. The petitioner had initiated proceedings for inclusion of her name as legal representative and had sought issuance of license in her name. In the aforesaid proceedings, the Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies on 26th September, 2007 had held the petitioner entitled for transfer of aforesaid license in her name. Pursuant thereto the Collector had on 8.10.2007 issued aforesaid license in favour of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4 preferred revision application under Clause 16 of the Licensing Order of 1979 . The Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies considered the matter and held that though the petitioner was a married daughter of Smt. Godavaribai Jadhav she had not been lawfully divorced. According to the Hon'ble Minister as a married daughter was ineligible to be considered as a member of the family of the deceased for being entitled for grant of retail license under Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2004, the order dated 8th October, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector came to be set aside and it was directed that the license be issued in the name of the respondent No.4.. It is said order dated 17.6.2009 that is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) During pendency of the present Writ Petition, the respondent No.4 son expired and his legal heirs were brought on record. The Writ Petition was amended and a challenge was laid to Government Resolutions / Circulars dated 22.12.1997, 16.8.2001, 10.12.2003 and 20.2.2004 by which a married daughter had been excluded from the meaning of the expression "family" for purposes of being granted retail kerosene license. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was placed before the Division Bench. The parties were put to notice that the Writ Petition could be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly we have heard Mr. Rahul D. Motkari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.P. Malvankar, learned AGP "A" Panel, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Deepalaxmi Matwankar, learned Counsel for respondent No.4(a).