1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. It is contended that petitioner's brother is residing separately, therefore is not part of member of petitioner's family under the Government Order dated 03.07.1990 and, therefore, the impugned order cancelling his fair price shop only on the ground that his brother has been elected as Pradhan is misconceived and incorrect.
2. Para 4.7 of the Government Order dated 03.07.1990 reads as under:
^^4.7- xzke iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku ds ifjokj ds lnL;[email protected]/k;ksa ds i{k esa mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkcaVu dk izLrko ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh&Lo;a] L=h] iq=] vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk] firk] HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gksA**
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that last clause of the paragraph that "one who is residing and sharing the same kitchen" would apply to all the categories of members of family mentioned in the earlier part of paragraph.
4. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. In my view the last clause that one who is residing alongwith him and share kitchen applies to "any other member" only and rest of the categories, namely, self, wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother, father, brother are absolute and are not guided by the words "residing with him and sharing his kitchen". In case his contention is accepted then it will make no sense when the word "self" is considered. Admittedly, it not apply to the word "self". If it would not apply to one category, i.e., 'self' then apply it to other categories, namely, wife, son etc also makes no sense for the reason that these are the categories which constitute normal members of family residing together.
5. These are basically the blood relations or so integrally connected relations that exclusion thereof furthers the object of provision otherwise it would become redundant. The wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother, father and brother are such category of relations that they are likely to influence the proper functioning of elected office bearer, i.e., Pradhan and in order to prevent even an apprehension of bias or prejudice this provision has been added. The last clause qualify the words "any other member" so that even if a person who is not in normal category of family members, if reside in the same house and sharing the kitchen, he/she is also excluded. Interpreting such provisions the principle of purposive interpretation must be followed. The purpose is to exclude any scope of bias or prejudice on the part of Gram Pradhan in discharging his democratic autonomous functions under the statute on account of clash of interest with the persons who are close family members or likely to influence him/her. It is for this reason when this Court test the submission of counsel for petitioner by reading the later part of clause with the first category, namely, 'self' the result was absurd since no one can be required to be a person residing with himself and sharing the same kitchen. Therefore, Sri Jafri admitted that these words "residing with him and sharing same kitchen" cannot be read alongwith 'self'. If that being so, it also not be read alongwith other categories except the last category, i.e., "any other member".
6. I, therefore, find no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order warranting interference.
7. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.9.2011 AK