Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks a declaration that the definition of "family member" given in paragraph 2(m) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013, included the brother of the deceased dealer in case of engagement of Modified Ration Dealer (M.R. Dealer) on compassionate ground as contemplated in paragraph 20(vi) of the Control Order of 2013.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the definition of "family member" as obtaining in paragraph 2(m) of the Control Order of 2013 is inconsistent with the general Rules of succession in case of Hindu males. He refers to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as well as the Schedule with regard thereto. He submits that, a father and a brother are class-II heirs. The definition of "family member" although includes dependent parents, it does not include a brother. Therefore, the exclusion of a brother from the definition of "family members" as obtaining in paragraph 2(m) of the Control Order is without any intelligible differentia. It is discriminatory. A brother ought to be included in the definition of a "family member". In support of the contention that, a classification needs to be reasonable to satisfy the test of Article 14 f the Constitution of India, he relies upon (State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR(SC) 75), (Roop Chand Adlakha & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., 1989 Supp1 SCC 116) and (Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors., 1994 4 SCC 138). Relying upon (State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors., 2001 7 SCC 708), he submits that, the classification sought to be made must be just and reasonable and must have reasonable nexus to the object of the legislation.
(3.) Relying upon (Baldev Sahai Bangia vs. R.G. Bhasin, 1982 2 SCC 210), learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the definition of a family should not be restrictive in nature. Such a definition should not be construed restrictively. According to him, family will include a brother of the person concerned. In support of such contention, he relies upon (State of H.P. vs. Amar Nath Sharma & Ors., 1994 Supp2 SCC 532). He relies upon (Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta, 1994 1 SCC 243) and submits that, the words used in the definition should be construed appropriately. The word 'any' used in the definition of a "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was found to have significance. Relying upon (The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima Das & Ors., 2017 4 CalHN 362), he submits that, a married daughter will come within the definition of a family. He relies upon (Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1977 1 SCC 486) and submits that, the writ petition is maintainable as the petitioner claims legal right which has been denied by the authorities.;