ORDER : H.G.RAMESH, J. 1. A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of a Division Bench; hence, the matter is placed before this Division Bench. “Whether the claim of an adopted son for transfer of authorization to run fair price shop on compassionate grounds is tenable?” The aforesaid question may be recast as follows: “Whether the word ‘son’ referred to in the proviso to Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 includes an ‘adopted son’?” 2. The reference was made because of divergent opinions rendered by two learned Single Judges of this Court in Sri Shivakumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner [WP No.8879/2013 (D.D.07.11.2013)], and in S.Balakrishna Reddy vs. The Hon’ble Secy. [ILR 2014 KAR 169]. In Sri Shivakumar (supra), the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the word ‘son’ referred to in the proviso to Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (‘the Control Order’ for short) includes an adopted son, if personal law of the parties permits adoption and the adoption is valid in law. In S. Balakrishna Reddy (supra), the view taken is that the word ‘son’ referred to in the aforesaid proviso does not include an adopted son. 3. To examine the question referred, it is necessary to refer to Clause 13 of the Control Order, which reads as follows: “13. Prohibition of transfer of authorisation.—No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his authorisation to any other person and no Person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer. Provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the event of the death of the authorized dealer to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter with the prior approval of the Government.” (Underlining supplied) 4. In the context of the question referred, we may refer to the definition of ‘son’ given in Section 3(57) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as follows: “Son”, in the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, shall include an adopted son; The definition of ‘son’ given in Section 3(38) of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 is identical to the one extracted above. 5. 5. In the absence of any express exclusion, there is no reason as to why an adopted son, validly adopted as per law, shall be excluded from the purview of ‘son’ referred to in Clause 13 of the Control Order. As an ‘adopted son’ is not excluded from the purview of ‘son’ referred to in Clause 13 of the Control Order, the word ‘son’ can’t be so interpreted so as to defeat the personal law of the parties. In our opinion, for the purpose of Clause 13 of the Control Order, ‘son’ shall include an adopted son, if personal law of the parties permits adoption and the adoption is valid in law. 6. In S.Balakrishna Reddy (supra), the learned Single Judge, by relying on Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 which states that an adopted son or daughter shall not be eligible for appointment under the said Rules, has taken the view that the word ‘son’ referred to in Clause 13 of the Control Order shall not include an adopted son. In our opinion, the analogy is not correct as there is no such exclusion in the Control Order. 7. For the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the view expressed in Sri Shivakumar (supra), and the contrary view expressed in S. Balakrishna Reddy [ILR 2014 KAR 169] is overruled. The question referred to this Division Bench is accordingly answered as follows: Claim of an adopted son for transfer of authorization to run a fair price depot is maintainable under Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, if personal law of the parties permits adoption and the adoption is valid in law. 8. Registry shall now list this writ petition before the learned Single Judge having the roster.