JUDGMENT 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. 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 grievance in regard to the inclusion of parents within the definition of a family in the case of an unmarried applicant. The issue before the Court is whether this assessment by the state owned oil companies for defining a disqualification or, as the case may be, eligibility is arbitrary and perverse. We are unable to hold that it is so. The nature of the definition has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which is the dispersal of ownership of such distributorships, dealerships and retail outlets. 6. We are unable to hold that it is so. The nature of the definition has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which is the dispersal of ownership of such distributorships, dealerships and retail outlets. 6. A similar issue was considered in a judgement of the Supreme Court in Mahinder Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 85 . In that case, the definition of the expression “close relatives” was defined in a broader sense for candidates who were not physically handicapped as opposed to those who belonged to the physically handicapped category. A person from amongst specified near relatives was made ineligible to apply for another dealership to any nationalized oil company. In the case of a candidate, who was not physically handicapped, the category included the spouse, parents, brother, sister, children, son-in-law/daughter-in-law and parents-in-law. While dealing with the challenge to the definition on the ground that it was arbitrary and repelling the contention of illegality, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “5. The preamble to the Constitution envisages the securing of economic and social justice to all its citizens; accorded equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of the individual. Article 39(b) postulates that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are to be so distributed as to best subserve the common good. Clause (c) prevents concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Since the grant of dealership or distributorship of the petroleum products belongs to the Government largesse, the Government in its policy of granting the largesse have prescribed the eligibility criteria. One of the eligibility criteria is that one among the near relations or partners or associates in other words among a named group of persons alone should have dealership and there should not be any concentration by them in the distribution of its petroleum products through the dealership. The guidelines further intend to prevent frustration of the State policy by process of legal ingenuity or subterfuge. One of the criteria is relationship. The relationship criteria has been prescribed to see that the persons who already had one dealership should not apply so that the above objectives of the Constitution are achieved. The guidelines further intend to prevent frustration of the State policy by process of legal ingenuity or subterfuge. One of the criteria is relationship. The relationship criteria has been prescribed to see that the persons who already had one dealership should not apply so that the above objectives of the Constitution are achieved. In Part III, clause (b) of the relationship category, a person from among specified near relatives has been made ineligible to apply for another dealership to any of the nationalised oil companies. The petitioners/appellants dehors the guidelines have no independent right to have business or avocation in the distribution or production or ownership of one of the petroleum products. Production and distribution of the petroleum products are the exclusive monopoly of the State under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. As a part of its policy of the distribution of its largesse Government have prescribed the eligibility criteria to the persons to obtain dealership for distribution of petroleum products. The distribution of the largesse of the State is for the common good and to subserve the common good of as many persons as possible. The Government of India intended to group together certain near relations as a unit and one among that unit alone was made eligible to apply for and claim for grant of dealership. Further, economic and social justice as envisaged in the preamble of the Construction is sought to be achieved. Therefore, there is a reasonable nexus between the object and the prescription of the eligibility criteria envisages in the guidelines. All those who satisfy the eligibility criteria alone are entitled to apply for the consideration of the grant of dealership. It is true that in case of physically handicapped persons, only three classes of persons were made ineligible. Physically handicapped persons have been treated as a class by themselves. Under these circumstances, any other person other than PH cannot claim parity with PH persons. As far as partnership is concerned, if one of the persons either have a dealership or relations who were found to be eligible under the relationship criteria, and had the dealership, than clause 10 of the said guidelines gets attracted and such partnership also did not become eligible to apply for dealership/distributorship. As far as partnership is concerned, if one of the persons either have a dealership or relations who were found to be eligible under the relationship criteria, and had the dealership, than clause 10 of the said guidelines gets attracted and such partnership also did not become eligible to apply for dealership/distributorship. The object of clause 10 appears to be that for those partners who either one among themselves or any of the relations of one of the partners had a dealership, the other partner or the specified relations also not be eligible to apply for grant of dealership individually or as a member of the partnership. Therefore the guidelines are based on public policy to give effect to the constitutional creed of Part IV of the Indian Constitution.” 7. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, noted above, such a qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary. Hence, we do not see any merit in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————