Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Appointment of fair price shop under dependent quota after death of dealer – Appellant’s mother-allottee of a fair price shop, passed away and the order of attachment passed of the fair price shop – Appellant-married daughter, then filed an application before the SDM seeking allotment of the shop in her capacity as a dependent – Appellant was the sole earning member of the household responsible for her four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired, and even after her marriage she continued to reside with her mother and sisters – SDM rejected the application since the appellant is a married daughter and not covered within the definition of ‘family’ as provided in G.O – Deputy Commissioner affirmed the order of the SDM – High Court also rejected the claim of the appellant, for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground – Correctness:
Held: Marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter – Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” cannot be sustained – Scheme providing allotment under the dependent quota upon the death of a dealer is intended to mitigate the immediate hardship suffered by the family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in the functioning of the public distribution system – Relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership – Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations – Exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary – Distinction created by Paragraph IV(10) of the G.O. lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the scheme – Exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Arts.14 and 15(1) of the Constitution – On a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, the expression “daughters” used in the said provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. – Provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any constitutional infirmity – It is saved by the very meaning it bears when understood in the light of its purpose – Material on record establishes that the appellant continued to reside in the same village even after her marriage and actively assisted her mother in the operation of the fair price shop – Appellant upon her mother’s demise, assumed responsibility for maintaining her sisters, including a visually impaired sister – Authorities have not disputed these factual assertions – Sole ground on which her application was rejected was that she is a married daughter – Once that ground is held to be constitutionally invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in her favour – Orders passed by the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and the SDM respectively quashed and set aside. [Paras 15, 18, 23-29]
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of purposive construction – Meaning:
Held: Principle of purposive construction is based on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to a provision which serves the purpose behind it, the basic approach being to ascertain is what the provision is designed to accomplish – When the language of an enactment is reasonably capable of more than one meaning, the Court is not merely permitted but is obliged to prefer that construction which promotes the provision and avoids a result that would be arbitrary or unjust – Court should adopt purposive interpretation in cases where the literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. [Para 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.