By the Court.—By these proceedings the petitioner has sought to question the legality of the definition of the expression “family unit” in clause-10 of the Brochure issued by state owned oil companies for the selection of dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets. Clause-10 of the brochure provides for a disqualification and, insofar it is material, provides as follows:

“10. DISQUALIFICATION

A. Individual Applicants :

The persons while meeting the above mentioned eligibility criteria if do not satisfy any of the following requirements will be considered as ineligible for applying for the dealership:

(i) Fulfill Multiple dealership norms : Multiple Dealership/Distributorship norms means that the applicant or any other member of ‘family unit’ should not hold a dealership/distributorship or Letter of Intent (LOI) for a dealership/distributorship of any Oil Company i.e. only one Retail Outlet /SKO-LDO dealership/LPG distributorship or an LOI of an Oil Company will be allowed to a ‘Family Unit’.

‘Family Unit’ in case of married applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s).”

2. Under the above condition, a multiple dealership norm has been put into place, under which any other member of the family unit should not hold a dealership, distributorship or a Letter of Intent for the allotment of a dealership or a distributorship of an oil company. In other words only one retail outlet dealership or distributorship of an oil company would be allotted to a family unit. In the case of an applicant who is married, the family unit has been defined to consist of the individual, his or her spouse and unmarried sons and daughters. In the case of an unmarried person, the family unit is defined to include parents and unmarried brothers and sisters.

3. According to the submission of the petitioner, this is a discriminatory provision and violates Article 14 of the Constitution since parents of an unmarried applicant have been brought within the purview of the expression ‘family unit’, whereas, in the case of a married individual, the parents are excluded.

4. The object and purpose of the disqualification is to ensure that there should not be a concentration of retail outlets, dealerships and distributorships of an Oil Company in one family. These dealerships or, as the case may be, retail outlets and distributorships, are allotted by state owned oil companies. Consistent with the Directive Principles of the State Policy, an effort is made to ensure dispersal of ownership so that a fair and equal opportunity is granted to all members of society to apply for the allotment of such dealerships, distributorships and retail outlets. There can be no gainsaying the fact that these allotments by the state owned oil companies are highly sought after, providing as they do an important source of income to the allottee. Hence the norm that there should be a dispersal of ownership cannot be faulted since it is based on a criterion which is rational. How a family should be defined for the purposes of the allotment of a retail outlet, distributorship or dealership, is a matter of policy so long as the criterion which is adopted, is based on logic and reason. The definition of the expression “family unit”, in the present case, postulates that where an applicant is married, his or her family should be read to consist of the spouse and unmarried children. Where, however, a person is not married, the parents and siblings are included as members of the family.

5. The petitioner has a g