Fair Price Shop Dealership | Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a married daughter is included within the definition of “family” under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 and cannot be refused appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds only because she is married. It held that she is entitled to be considered subject to fulfilling the remaining eligibility conditions, including local residence and no objection from the other adult members of the family.Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016 defines “family” to include adult children who are fully dependent on the head of the family, and separately lists unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters. Paragraph 4 of Government Order No. 6 of 2019, issued under Rule 7(2)(i) of the Control Order, lays down the essential qualifications for appointment to run a fair price shop in rural areas, including High School education, minimum age of 21 years, local residence and absence of involvement in any criminal case.Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,“If the aforesaid provisions are interpreted conjointly by adopting a literal interpretation, it would lead to an anomalous and absurd result which was never intended by the legislature, as daughters cannot be arbitrarily classified into married and unmarried categories for the purpose of extending a welfare measure. Such an arbitrary classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination based on unreasonable classification.”Petitioner's father, Raj Bahadur Patel, held a fair price shop dealership in Gram Panchayat Chalakpur Kurmiyan, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh and died on 2nd November 2025. Petitioner applied on 30th December 2025 for allotment of the dealership as his dependent daughter, stating that she had continued to live with her father even after her marriage and was therefore a local resident meeting the eligibility conditions. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj rejected the application on the sole ground that she was a married daughter.Before the High Court, petitioner argued that refusing appointment on the basis of marital status alone was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the expression “adult children” in Clause 2(p) covers sons and daughters alike, whether married or unmarried.The Court observed that the Control Order, 2016 was issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and prescribes the procedure and the eligibility criteria for appointment of fair price shop dealers. Since the scheme is meant to secure equitable distribution of essential commodities through the public distribution system, it held that its provisions must be read purposively rather than literally.The Court relied on E.P. Royappa v. State of Madras (now Tamil Nadu), where the Supreme Court observed that equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Supreme Court held that a classification under Article 14 must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.Justice Deshwal held that sorting daughters by marital status for the purpose of a welfare measure could not survive that test.Referring to Kulsum Nisha v. State of UP, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had read the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) to include a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies every other eligibility condition prescribed by the Government Order, including local residence.“… it is clear that a married daughter is also included within the definition of “family” and is entitled to apply for appointment as a fair price shop dealer after the death of her father or mother, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions such as local residence, no objection from other adult family members, and other prescribed requirements.”Setting aside the rejection order, the Court held the same was arbitrary. The matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in light of the observations made, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Case Title: Reena Devi Patel v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487Click Here To Read/Download Order

Fair Price Shop Dealership | Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Fair Price Shop Dealership | Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers