Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—For getting an authoritative pronouncement, as to whether the definition of family as interpreted in the case of Ram Murat and others v. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others, 2006(5) ADJ 396, is correct or not, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench for answering the following two questions’

(i) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat (supra), defining the word ‘Family’ as given in Government Order dated 3.7.1990 (Para 4.7) lays down the correct law specially after the enforcement of order 2004 ?

(ii) Whether the definition of family as given in Clause 2(o) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, shall override the definition of family given in para 4.7 of Government order dated 3.7.1990 ?

2. The factual background in which the aforementioned issues have been raised are that petitioner of present writ petition was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 1993. Petitioner’s son Raj Bahadur was elected as Pradhan in the year 2010. A show-cause notice dated 5th November, 2012 was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the shop be not cancelled, since, he is running the shop, living in the joint family, and his son has been elected as Pradhan. Petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice dated 31.1.2013 and same was followed by the order dated 3rd April, 2013 by which petitioner’s fair price shop agreement has been cancelled.

3. Petitioner at this juncture has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision so taken cancelling his fair price shop agreement on 3rd April, 2013 and his submission has been to the effect that petitioner’s son is living separately and cannot be treated to be a member of family and, accordingly, ground on the basis of which petitioner’s fair price shop has been cancelled is unsustainable. Petitioner’s submission has been to the effect that the definition of family as given in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 and as has been interpreted in Ram Murat’s case (supra) does not take into consideration Clause 2 (o) and further Clauses 30 and 31 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, in its correct reference and correct perspective and, in view of this, the definition of family contained in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 has to be accepted as superseded and effaced after the enforcement of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. The Division Bench of this Court noticed the arguments raised from the side of petitioner and proceeded to refer the matter in the direction of getting authoritative pronouncement.

4. Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner, opened his arguments by contending that the Division Bench’s judgment in the case of Ram Murat (supra) by accepting the definition of the word ‘family’ as given in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 paragraph 4.7 has not at all laid down the correct law after enforcement of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,2004 wherein a different concept and a different definition has been introduced in the shape of “house hold” which is synonyms to “family” and in such a situation definition of family as mentioned in Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 has to be accepted as effaced and, accordingly, by placing reliance on the definition of family as given in paragraph 4.7 of Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990, such a punitive action could not have been taken, as has been done in the present case and the issue in question ought to have been dealt with on the parameters of the definition of “household”, which is synonymus to family as is provided under Clause 2 (o) of in U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,2004, as same has the overriding effect over the definition of family given in paragraph 4.7 of the Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 and, as such, reference in question should be answered in favour of petitioner and the view as taken by the Division Ben