Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Upon the death of the petitioner's husband on 15.9.2016, she claimed her right as his dependent to run the fair price shop. When it was refused by the order dated 15.9.2016, she filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 18.8.2017. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that she could not be denied the licence to run the fair price shop on account of the fact that her husband was a resident of village-Nagsar Newaju Rai and the shop was situate in village Nagsar Meer Rai. She claimed that when a person was to be appointed as a dependent of a deceased-fair price shop dealer then the provisions of Clause 10 (cha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 would not apply. Further contention of the petitioner was that when an appointment of a dependent was to be made under Clause-10 (jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 then the only consideration was that the applicant had to be a dependent of the deceased. It mattered little that the dependent of the deceased, was a resident of some other village. The purpose of Clause-10(jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 was to bring succour to the dependents of the deceased who had become indigent owing to the death of the fair price shop dealer. Further contention of the petitioner was that while the petitioner's husband was alive, he was living in village-Nagsar Newaju Rai and was running his shop in Nagsar Meer Rai very effectively. It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that before the two villages were bifurcated they were one and the house of the petitioner was just a lane away from the shop, meaning thereby that it was just across the lane. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the residents ever since 27.12.1999 when the petitioner's husband was allotted the fair price shop were always very happy with the functioning of the shop and they never complained against him. It has further been submitted that Clause 10 (jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 was a piece of beneficial legislation and it could not be whittled down by the provisions of Clause 10 (cha). The intention of the provisions of Clause 10 (jha) was that succour had to be brought to the dependents. Therefore, interpretation of the Government Order should be such that it furthers the policy and object of the Government Order. He further submits that a generous degree of latitude was to be made permissible in cases of welfare legislations which are designed to further a noble cause. In fact courts should strive to interpret beneficial Clauses in such a manner that they further the cause the legislation had sought to espouse. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner's husband as per the Government Order dated 3.7.1990, the distribution of the essential commodities took place very effectively. He further submitted that once when in the year 2015, an objection was made by certain villagers that the shop could not be run by the fair price shop dealer as he was a resident of another village then on 8.6.2015 the Sub-divisional Magistrate had turned down the objection and had stated in the order that the shop was allotted to the petitioner on 28.12.1999 as per the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 and, therefore, it could not be said that there was anything wrong in the allotment done in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) The learned Standing Counsel, however, relied on the Government Order date 17.8.2002 and emphatically stressed on Clause 10 (cha) and submitted that if the petitioner had to be allotted the fair price shop then she should be a resident of Village-Nagsar Meer Rai where the shop was situate. He also pointed out to the Government Order dated 11.5.2017 and stated that if a fresh shop had to be allotted then the same had to be done only if the shopkeeper was the resident of that village.;