JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2015 whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Lamti Ukrahwa, Pargana and Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that grand father of the petitioner was the sitting licensee of the fair price shop in question. He has died on 12.3.2014. The father of the petitioner has died prior to the death of his grand father. Petitioner was dependent on his grand father. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the eldest person in the family and has applied for grant of fair price shop license in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, in case of death of a sitting licensee, the authority concerned shall consider for grant of fair price shop license to the dependents of the licensee in case he carries a good reputation, however petitioner has been denied grant of fair price shop license simply because he is the grand son of the then sitting licensee and not the son. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, on the other hand, submits that as per the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, in case of death of sitting licensee of a fair price shop, the competent authority shall consider for grant of fair price shop license to the dependents of the sitting licensee. The dependents has been defined as wife, son or unmarried daughter. Since the petitioner is not the son of the deceased licensee, as such he is not covered under the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. 6. It appears that claim of the petitioner for grant of fair price shop license has been denied simply because he is not the son of the deceased licensee and as such is not covered under the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. The Government Order dated 17.8.2002 has been filed along with the counter affidavit. The perusal of same indicates that a provision has been made for allotment of fair price shop to the dependents of the deceased licensee, provided he carries a good reputation. In this regard the dependents have been explained as wife, son and unmarried daughter. 7. The Government Order dated 17.8.2002 has been filed along with the counter affidavit. The perusal of same indicates that a provision has been made for allotment of fair price shop to the dependents of the deceased licensee, provided he carries a good reputation. In this regard the dependents have been explained as wife, son and unmarried daughter. 7. The intention to grant license to a dependent of a deceased licensee is very clear. It means that in case a sitting licensee who is having a good reputation dies, the dependents and his family members may not suffer and considering the said fact it has been provided that in case of death of the deceased licensee, the competent authority shall consider for grant of license to his dependents. The purpose to provide the said benefit is to mitigate the sufferings of the members of the deceased licensee and to provide them a source of income 8. In the instant case the grand father of the petitioner was the sitting licensee of the fair price shop in question. He had died in the year 2014. The father of the petitioner has died prior to the death of the deceased licensee. The petitioner was dependent on his grand father who was the sitting licensee. The petitioner is the eldest member in the family. 9. The definition of family can be enlarged to include such family members other than the wife, son and unmarried daughter in case such family member was totally dependent on the deceased licensee and there is no other eligible person in the family who can be considered for grant of fair price shop license. 10. As such, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is fully entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. The claim of the petitioner shall not be denied simply because he is not the son of the deceased licensee. 11. The claim of the petitioner, as such, shall be considered afresh by the competent authority as per the observations made hereinabove. The competent authoirty i.e. opposite party no. 3, shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. The competent authoirty i.e. opposite party no. 3, shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. The impugned order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the opposite party no. 3 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), is hereby quashed.