BALWINDER MASIH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's grievance against the selection of the 6th respondent for being awarded with LPG dealership is that one of the eligibility criteria mentioned for selection is that the applicant shall be a resident of the town of the advertised location under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme. The contention is that the 6th respondent mentioned her parent's village Awan as her residence, which is required to be the place for allotment. She had been married and moved to her husband's house in another village where her name also figures as a resident. Learned counsel, therefore, says that the 6th respondent does not fulfill the eligibility criterion and seeks for quashing of the award of contract to her. The residential qualification itself, in matters of State largesse, must be viewed very strictly in view of the constitutional mandate that frowns upon the discrimination on the basis of residence. Deviations are made which are grounded by some exigencies to the extent, which is permissible in the Constitution itself and therefore, if there is a requirement of residence in any public advertisement, it has to be construed very strictly. A person, who had been a resident in a village where she was born and brought up cannot said to be a non -resident by the only fact that she has married to a person living in another village. In my view, she shall be allowed to be treated as resident of the village of her birth place where she lived till her marriage and she cannot be disqualified by the only fact that she had been married and her husband resides elsewhere. A marriage does not constitute an uprooting ties of her natural family and it would be too harsh and unrealistic in the present days that a woman could be treated as chattel of the husband and she would lose her domicile by getting married to a person of another village. Residential status is principally one of fact, but the element of intention of where the person treats such status to be is not irrelevant. If a married woman intends to treat her parental home, where she grew up as her residence, for the purpose of claiming LPG dealership, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation accepting such a claim. It is again not unheard of that a woman retains his maiden name and docs not adopt her husband's surname, even after marriage. There is no other objection relating to the selection made by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) FOR the reasons set forth aforesaid, the petitioner cannot obtain favourable consideration. The writ petition is dismissed.