V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THE six petitioners in this writ petition have been issued letters of authorisation by the competent authority to run fair price shops which are valid upto 31-12-1992. In the present writ petition the Government Order issued on 19- 2-1992 has been challenged on the ground that certain provisions of the aforesaid Government Order are liable to be struck down on the ground that they are in conflict with the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Order 1990) and that they lay down conditions which are arbitrary, Specific challenge is to conditions laid down in Clauses 1, 2, and 6 of the Government Order dated 19-2-1992.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for (the petitioners and the Standing Counsel. As the questions raised in the present writ petition are purely legal questions the present writ petition is being decided finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court. The first argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State Government has got no power to issue directions contained in the Government Order dated 19-2-1992 As far as the aforesaid question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, we are of the opinion that the State Government under the provisions of Clause 4 (1) of Order 1990 can issue directions regarding the manner in which the fair price shops shall be run The State Government has thus got power to lay down guidelines for the proper running of fair price shops. It may, however, be made clear that the directions have to be in consonance with the provisions of Order 1990 and not in conflict with any of the provisions of Order 1990.
(3.) AS far as condition no 1 laid down in the Government Order dated 19-2-1992 is concerned the same only lays down that the screening committee will examine whether the person in whose favour the authorisation order to run a fair price shop has been issued, has got financial capacity to lift the monthly quota or not. In our opinion the condition which has been laid down cannot be said to be arbitrary and on the other hand is a perfectly valid condition. In case the person in whose favour the authorisation order to run a fair price shop has been granted has got no financial capacity to lift the monthly quota a situation may arise when from the fair price shop which has been given to him there may not be any distribution of the essential commodities This condition therefore in our opinion does not suffer from any vice. Condition no. 3 in Government Order dated 19-2-1992 has been challenged on the ground that the definition of 'Family' as has been given in Clause 3 of the foresaid order is in conflict with the definition of 'Household' as has been given in Clause 2 (b) of Order 1990. It has also been urged that inclusion of son and unmarried daughter in the definition of 'Family' is arbitrary and liable to be struck down.;