BINOD KUMAR ROY, LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ. ( 1 ) FOLLOWING prayers have been made in this writ petition by the two petitioners, who are related as Grandfather and Grandson respectively : (i) to quash the order dated 17. 6. 1995 passed by Collector. Farrukhabad (as contained in annexure-17) : (ii) to command respondent No. 1. State of U. P. which has been sued through the District magistrate. Farrukhabad, to Issue a certificate of dependant of Freedom fighter ; (iii) to issue any writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper, and (iv) to award costs. 1. 1. A perusal of the impugned order shows rejection of the petition dated 17. 5. 1995 filed by the petitioner No. 1 before the Collector, Farrukhabad (as contained in Annexure-15) for issuing a certificate that his Grandson Hari Narain Sharma (petitioner No. 2 herein) is actually dependent on him. ( 2 ) THE case of the Petitioners, in substance, is as follows : since his childhood the petitioner No. 2 has been living with petitioner No. 1 as his dependent and he has no concern with his father Om Prakash. Petitioner No. 2 is a Diploma holder in Civil engineering since 1986 and still unemployed and eligible for being appointed as a Junior engineer. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 happens to be the guardian of petitioner No. 2 stands mentioned in his School Leaving Certificate as contained in Annexure-2. As per the Government order dated 7. 9. 1972 (as contained in Annexure-3 clarifying the earlier Government Order dated 6. 2. 1972) the grandsons who are dependents of freedom-fighters, are entitled for certificate of dependent of freedom-fighters which after its deletion by Government Order dated 3. 4. 1972 (as contained in Annexure-4) was again included vide Government Order dated 19. 1. 1977 (as contained in Annexure-5 ). Vide another Government Order dated 22. 1. 1982 (as contained in annexure-6 ). a clarification was issued to the Public Service Commission in respect of reservation in service for the dependents of freedom-fighters. Vide Government Order dated 15. 1. 1983 (copy appended as Annexure-7) the facilities provided to the dependents of the freedom -fighters were made applicable upto 1985 and by another Government Order dated 3. 9. 1992 (copy appended as Annexure-9) the same was extended upto 31. 12. 1997. The petitioner no. Vide Government Order dated 15. 1. 1983 (copy appended as Annexure-7) the facilities provided to the dependents of the freedom -fighters were made applicable upto 1985 and by another Government Order dated 3. 9. 1992 (copy appended as Annexure-9) the same was extended upto 31. 12. 1997. The petitioner no. 2 being fully dependent on petitioner No. 1 is entitled to such a certificate. In January, 1993 an application was submitted for grant of such a certificate. On the said application, enquiries were made by the Lekhpal. Kanoongo and Tahsildar. From the report dated 28. 12. 1993 of the lekhpal and reports dated 29. 12. 1993 of the Kanoongo and Tahsildar submited to the Collector, farrukhabad (as contained in Annexure-10) even though it was clear that the petitioner No. 2 was reported to be dependent on the petitioner No. 1 with whom he resides whereas his father om Prakash Sharma does "lohargiri" (blacksmith by profession) yet the District Magistrate, farrukhabad, refused to issue the desired certificate. A representation dated 9. 2. 1994 was made by the petitioner No. 1 to the Special Secretary, U. P. Government, who vide his order as contained in letter dated 9. 2. 1994 (copy appended as Annexure-11) asked the District magistrate, Farrukhabad to pass appropriate order in the light of G. O. dated 15,1. 1983. On 8. 9. 1993 a certificate (copy appended as Annexure-12) was issued to petitioner No. 1 to the effect that petitioner No. 2 is his grand-son but relying upon the Government Order dated 8. 12. 1986 it was stated that petitioner No. 2 is not dependent of a freedom-fighter and thus not entitled to such a certificate. Various efforts were made for issuance of the desired certificate. An advertisement for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers in the Department of Rural engineering Service was published in 1995 pursuance to which petitioner No. 2 applied. appeared in the written test, called for an interview and was asked by the Public Service commission, vide its letter dated 1. 3-1995 (copy appended as Annexure-13) to submit such a certificate, which was served on him on 16. 5. 1995. On receipt of this letter, another application dated 18. 5. 1995 along with his affidavit (copy appended as Annexure-14) was filed by petitioner no. 1 before the Collector. The Lekhpal vide his report dated 21. 5. 3-1995 (copy appended as Annexure-13) to submit such a certificate, which was served on him on 16. 5. 1995. On receipt of this letter, another application dated 18. 5. 1995 along with his affidavit (copy appended as Annexure-14) was filed by petitioner no. 1 before the Collector. The Lekhpal vide his report dated 21. 5. 1995 (copy appended as annexure-15) submitted to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 is in fact totally dependent on his grandfather who is a freedom-fighter pensioner. The Kanoongo, vide his report dated 24. 5. 1995 (which is part of Annexure-15 itself) also submitted his report favourably. Despite favourable reports and recommendations, the desired certificate has not been issued till date, respondent No. 1 has no authority to withhold issuance of the desired certificate. Petitioner No. 2 personally visited the office of respondent No. 1 on 22. 5. 1995 and requested him for issuance of the desired certificate but the latter refused to do anything. The petitioners moved this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15435 of 1995 which was disposed of vide order as contained in Annexure-!6 with a direction to the District Magistrate. Farrukhabad. to decide the representation in accordance with the Government Order and thereafter vide impugned order the representation was rejected without giving any opportunity of being heard and thereby it is liable to be set aside. In rejecting his representation, the District Magistrate has completely ignored and not at all considered the reports of the Lekhpal and Kanoongo as contained in Annexures-10 and 15, which were already on the record clearly proving that the petitioner No. 2 came within the purview of dependent of a freedomfighter. The Public Service Commission is going to declare the result of selection and it is apprehended that in the absence of desired certificate he may not be considered and thus an Irreparable loss will be suffered. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit, sworn by the Additional Tahsildar, was filed on 11. 9. 1996 asserting to the following effect : he has been authorised to file counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. (leaving the number blank) who has full knowledge in regard to the facts stated in the writ petition and is competent to answer them, petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on his grand-father Kanhaiya Lal but on his father Om Prakash who is doing in Iron grill manufacturing business. In the School Leaving certificate the name of Kanhaiya Lal stands entered as a Guardian and the petitioner No. 2 has not been shown as his dependent. Petitioner No. 1 resides with his second son Ram Narain from which it is clear that even the father of petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on petitioner No. 1 ; the government Order dated 22. 1. 1982 clearly states that for civil services merely being a dependent is not sufficient but one should be factually dependent whereas petitioner No. 2 is in fact not a dependent on his grandfather and the Government Order in question does not apply ; from the spot-inspection in question it is clear that petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on his grand-father but is dependent on his father, the reports relied upon are incomplete besides the Tahsildar, who is the competent authority, has not submitted his report, but has merely forwarded which has no justification inasmuch as his report should have been clear and made after a thinking which was not accepted by the Pargana Adhikari, who recommended for non-issuance of the certificate and accordingly it was not issued, the Government has not passed any order to issue certificate without holding a complete enquiry, only reports of a gazetted officer is liable for acceptance and the reports of Lekhpal and Kanoongo are not acceptable, the petitioners were not found entitled for issuance of the certificate which can be issued only as per the rules, the Impugned order has been passed as per the rules in which there is no error, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is worthy of dismissal with cost. ( 4 ) IN their rejoinder filed on 21. 7. 1999. ( 4 ) IN their rejoinder filed on 21. 7. 1999. sworn by petitioner No. 1 it has been asserted by the petitioners, infer alia, that petitioner No. 2 is dependent on petitioner No. 1 and not on his father : mentioning of the fact that petitioner No. 1 is guardian of petitioner No. 2 in the School leaving Certificate clearly shows that petitioner No. 2 is dependent on him and it has been wrongly stated that he is dependent on his father, petitioner No. 1 has four sons including the father of petitioner No. 2 and the members of the family are living in one house, the reply that petitioner No- 1 is living with his second son or that the father of petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on petitioner No. 1 is wholly irrelevant for deciding the controversy involved in the case : petitioner No. 1 is taking all pains in bringing up petitioner No. 2 regarding his education, food, clothing and other liabilities and petitioner No. 2 is in fact dependent on him and the averments to the contrary have been made without any basis and are false, the residence of the petitioners fall in Tahsil Tiruaganj, earlier it was Tahsil Kannauj which has now been made district whereas the Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Upper Tahsildar of Tahsil chhibramau which is situated about 40 kilometres away from Tahsil Tiruaganj, admittedly no counter-affidavit has been filed by any authority of Tahsil Tiruaganj and the deponent of the counter-affidavit is not supposed to know facts mentioned in the Counter-affidavit, the reports made by the authorities are genuine besides submitted after thorough enquiry and the assertion that they are incomplete or wanting from the Tahsildar who had merely forwarded are wholly irrelevant ; the Tahstldar had rightly forwarded the report after satisfying himself ; the sub-Divisional Magistrate had not made any enquiry before submission of his alleged report dated 17. 8. 8. 1994 as mentioned in the impugned order : at no point of time the petitioners were afforded any opportunity in regard to the alleged inspection made by him (Sub-Divisional magistrate, Kannauj), a copy of which has also not been filed, and thus the respondents are guilty of withholding material documents ; no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to file objection against his aforementioned report either, which is absolutely incorrect ; no provision has been shown by the respondents that enquiry has to be made by a gazetted officer ; good grounds having been made, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. ( 5 ) ON 3. 2. 2000 a supplementary-affidavit, sworn by petitioner No. 1 was filed appending a copy of Government Order dated 15. 1. 1983 as Annexure-SA 1 and copy of Uttar Pradesh Public services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as Annexure-SA 2. ( 6 ) SRI Sankatha Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended as follows : section 2 (b) of the Act defines the word "dependent which with reference to a freedom fighter means his grandson and this definition being plain and exhaustive cannot be interpreted to mean such dependents who are financially/economically dependent on their freedom fighter grandfather. The mere relation of petitioner No. 2 as grandson to petitioner No. 1 who is admittedly a freedom fighter under the Act, was sufficient for issuance of the desired certificate. Thus, the reasons given in the impugned order and the Counter affidavit are wholly misconceived, Irrelevant and the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Findings have been recorded admittedly violating the principles of justice and completely ignoring the favourable reports of the Lekhpal, Kanoongo and Tahsildar which were on the record. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that only reports of the Gazetted officers alone are to be relied upon. The report of respondent No, 2 was incorrectly submitted and wrongly relied upon about which the petitioners were kept in darkness. Had an opportunity been granted the petitioner No. 1 would have filed an objection. Thus, this writ petition be allowed with cost. The report of respondent No, 2 was incorrectly submitted and wrongly relied upon about which the petitioners were kept in darkness. Had an opportunity been granted the petitioner No. 1 would have filed an objection. Thus, this writ petition be allowed with cost. ( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate General Sri R. P. Goyal, appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, had contended that description of son and daughter in clause (i) and of the grandson and unmarried grand daughter (daughter of a son) in clause (ii) of Section 2 (b) of the Act clearly shows the intention of the Legislature that during the life time of the son, the grandson cannot be treated as dependent. Son and daughter referred to in clause (i) aforementioned has to be necessarily given preference. Even under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956, the property of a male Hindu dying Intestate shall devolve firstly on the son and not on the grandson, the Government has taken a correct stand in the counter-affidavit to which no effective answer has been given by the petitioners, and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. ( 8 ) SRI Rai. In reply apart from reiterating his submissions, had also referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court : (i) Purshottam H. Judye and others v. V. B. Potdar, AIR 1966 SC 856 ; (ii)Jagir Stngh and others etc. v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1976 SC 997 ; and relied upon passages at pages 121-122 from the book "principles of Statutory Interpretation" by Mr. Justice g. P. Singh (5th Edition, Reprint. 1994), ( 9 ) IN our view the following questions crop up for our consideration : (i) Whether a grandson of a freedom fighter, who even assuming is not financially dependent on his such a grandfather, will be dependent as defined under sub-section 2 (b) of the Act? (ii) Whether the findings recorded in the impugned order are vitiated and liable to be set aside for the grounds urged oil behalf of the petitioners ? (iii) Whether the prayers made by the petitioners should be allowed ?" (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to cost ? our Findings : ( 10 ) IN January. 1993 on an application submitted for grant of the desired certificate an enquiry was made through Lekhpal. Kanoongo and Tahsildar. (iii) Whether the prayers made by the petitioners should be allowed ?" (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to cost ? our Findings : ( 10 ) IN January. 1993 on an application submitted for grant of the desired certificate an enquiry was made through Lekhpal. Kanoongo and Tahsildar. Copy of the enquiry report has been filed as Annexure-10. A perusal of this document shows that it contains the report dated 28. 12. 1993 of the Lekhpat, the report dated 29. 12. 1993 of the Kanoongo and the report dated 29. 12. 1993 of the tahsildar. In his report the Lekhpal had stated that the applicant Hart Naraln is dependent on his grand father Kanhaiya Lal s/o Gauri Shanker who is a freedom fighter and the applicant happens to be son of Om Prakash Sharma who does the work of blacksmith. The Kanoongo in his report had reiterated the facts reported to by the Lekhpal. The Tahsildar also reiterated the same thing adding that these facts are based on the enquiry report of Bhu Lekh Nirikshak Mulayam Singh, tirwa Region. A perusal of the letter (Annexure-11) of the Secretary shows that a request was made to the Collector of the District Farruknabad to take appropriate action in the light of the government Order dated 6. 2. 1972 which has already been circulated. From the document appended as Annexure-12. It is clear that Collector of the District Farrukhabad, though certified petitioner No. 2 to be grand son of a freedom fighter but after recording a finding that as per the government Order dated 8. 12. 1986 of the Education Department, he does not come in the category of dependent of a freedom fighter. The order dated 30. 5. 1995 passed by a learned single judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15435 of 1995, filed by the petitioners, shows that the District Magistrate was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners application dated 18. 5. 1995 as contained in Annexure-14. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the entire claim of the petitioners this time was got examined by the Sub-Divisional magistrate. Kannauj (respondent No. 2 herein) who vide his report dated 17. 8. 5. 1995 as contained in Annexure-14. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the entire claim of the petitioners this time was got examined by the Sub-Divisional magistrate. Kannauj (respondent No. 2 herein) who vide his report dated 17. 8. 1994 reported, inter alia, to the effect that petitioner No. 1 is residing along with his son Ram Narain, that concrete materials were not available that petitioner No. 2 is really dependent on his grand father ; that Om Prakash Sharma father of Hari Narain Sharma is alive who is dependent on him ; that hari Narain Sharma himself has not made any prayer for grant of the certificate of dependent nor has he filed any affidavit to that effect ; that Kanhaiya Lal has also not filed an affidavit to the effect that he is not residing with Om Prakash Sharma but is residing along with Ram Narain, his another son ; that in the School Leaving Certificate of Hari Narain, his grand father has been shown to be his guardian and from being a guardian, it is not proved that Hari Narain was really dependent on him and thus the application dated 16. 5. 1995 of petitioner No. 1 Kanhaiya Lal is baseless and is rejected. The report, however, has not been brought on the record nor were the petitioners apprised of it by the Collector prior to passing of his orders. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, let us examine the relevant provisions of the Act which came into effect from December 11, 1992 as it is apparent from sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act, which alone have the binding effect. ( 12 ) FROM clause (ii) sub-section (1) of Section 3. It is clear that 5% of the vacancies at the stage of direct recruitment in favour of physically handicapped, dependent of freedom fighters and ex-Servicemen have been reserved in public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. Under sub-section (2) of Section 3, the respective quota of the aforementioned three categories shall be such as may be determined by the Stale Government from time to time by an order to be notified. Section 4 contains the clause for removal of difficulties with a rider that no order in that regard shall be made after the expiration of two years period from the commencement of the Act. Section 4 contains the clause for removal of difficulties with a rider that no order in that regard shall be made after the expiration of two years period from the commencement of the Act. No order has been brought on the record by either side notifying by way of removal of difficulties in giving effect to any of the provisions of the Act. The G. Os. referred to by one or the other party of the period before December 11, 1992 are not relevant. 12. 1. Now let us revert to the definition clause. Section 2 of the Act contains the definitions. 12. 2. Section 2 (d) read thus : " (d) "freedom fighter" means a person domiciled in Uttar Pradesh who had participated in the freedom struggle of India and had : (i) laid down his life ; or (ii) undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of at least two months ; or (iii) been detained in prison as an underirial or a detainee for a period of at least three months : or (iv) been sentenced with at least ten canes : or (v) been declared as an absconder ; or (vi) sustained bullet injuries ; or (vii) participated in peshawar Kand" : or (viii) been a member of Indian National Army ; or (ix) been a certified member of Indian Independence league ; or (x) been released under the gandhi Irwin Pact. Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, a person who had sought and had been pardoned shall not be deemed to be a freedom fighter. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 is a freedom fighter stands admitted. 12. 3. Section 2 (b) reads thus :" (b) "dependent" with reference to a freedom fighter means,-- (i) son and daughter (married or unmarried), (ii) grandson fson of a son) and unmarried grand daughter (daughter of a son ). of the freedom-fighter". 12. 4. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44354 of 1998, Raj Bahadur v. Slate of U. P, decided on 25. 5. 1999 by one of us (Binod Kumar Roy and Honble Mr. of the freedom-fighter". 12. 4. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44354 of 1998, Raj Bahadur v. Slate of U. P, decided on 25. 5. 1999 by one of us (Binod Kumar Roy and Honble Mr. Justice D. R. Chaudhary when the district Magistrate, Chandauli refused to issue a similar certificate to a grandson of a freedom fighter grandfather on the ground that since his father is alive, who is a Lecturer, and thus could not be deemed to be a dependent, after taking in account the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, sworn by the Special Secretary (Personnel) of the State Government, that the Act concedes grant of certificate in favour of a dependent of a freedom fighter who could be a son as well as grandson and the view of the District Magistrate that since the petitioner is dependent on his father, who is a Lecturer, and thus not entitled to such a certificate, is not correct in the light of the plain language of the provisions of the Act as the intention of the Legislature is abundantly clear that it does not choose to impose any restriction or condition and thus it is sufficient if the person claiming certificate as a dependent is son or a daughter or a grandson and unmarried grand daughter who will be entitled for grant of such certificate, this Court directed the District magistrate to grant such a certificate. A bare perusal of Section 2 (b) leaves no manner of doubt that no rider has been added by the legislature that in order to be dependent the grandson has to be economically dependent on his grand father. This being a beneficial piece of legislation for the sons, daughters, grand sons and unmarried granddaughter (daughter of a son) of freedom fighters. who had participated in the freedom struggle of the Country, should not be given a restricted meaning, but a wider meaning. We accept the submissions of Mr. Rai that the definition of the word dependent is an exhaustive and restrictive definition. The argument of Mr. Rai also finds support from the passages occurring at Pages 121-122 of G. P. Singhs Principals of Statutory Interpretation. We also find that a learned single Judge of our Court in Kumari Priyanka Agrawal v. Director general. Medical Education and Training. Rai that the definition of the word dependent is an exhaustive and restrictive definition. The argument of Mr. Rai also finds support from the passages occurring at Pages 121-122 of G. P. Singhs Principals of Statutory Interpretation. We also find that a learned single Judge of our Court in Kumari Priyanka Agrawal v. Director general. Medical Education and Training. 2000 HI AWC 473 - 2000 ALJ 1805, has also held that a grandson in order to qualify as a dependent of a freedom fighter grandfather need not be financially dependent upon his grandfather after correctly distinguishing Haryana Public Service commission v. Harinder Singh, 1998 (5) SCC 452 : AIR 1999 SC 551 , on the ground that the provision therein was different, which was not even referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate General. To crown all. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner No. 2 is gainfully employed. ( 13 ) IT is not possible for us to accept the contention made by the learned Advocate General that the son and daughter mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) excludes grandsons or an unmarried daughter of a son of a freedom fighter keeping in mind the plain language of the statute and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Satya Charan Dutta v. Urmila sundari Dassi, AIR 1970 SC 1714 , that the Legislature while using Arabic numerals in Class II of the Schedule attached to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, never intended to create an order of preference and lay down the same by use of arable numerals. ( 14 ) ON the findings of fact recorded by the Collector, Farrukhabad petitioner No. I happens to be a freedom fighter and petitioner No. 2 is his grand son. On a true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, we hold that the reasons given by the Collector. Farrukhabad in the impugned order are irrelevant and his order of refusal to grant the desired certificate is vitiated in law and must be set aside. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated 17. 6. 1995 as contained in Annexure-17 is quashed and the Collector of the district Farrukhabad. Farrukhabad in the impugned order are irrelevant and his order of refusal to grant the desired certificate is vitiated in law and must be set aside. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated 17. 6. 1995 as contained in Annexure-17 is quashed and the Collector of the district Farrukhabad. Is commanded to grant the desired certificate to petitioner No. 1 and/or petitioner No. 2 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from any quarter. ( 15 ) IN the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are also entitled to cost. ( 16 ) THIS writ petition is allowed with cost quantified to Rs. 2,000. ( 17 ) THE office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to Sri P. K. Bisaria, the learned standing counsel for its intimation to and follow up action by the District magistrate-cum-Collector of the district Farrukhabad.