JUDGMENT : Subhash Vidyarthi, J. 1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel of the opposite party no.5. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of an order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the opposite party no.4- Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Alapur, District - Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the petitioner's representation for being allotted Fair Price Shop of Village- Manapur, Semra on compassionate ground due to death of Srinath Pandey - the licensee of the shop, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner being a grandson of the deceased licensee, is not entitled to be granted the license on compassionate ground. 3. Earlier the petitioner had filed Writ - C No.1280 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of an order dated 12.02.2024 giving liberty to the petitioner to move a representation to the opposite party no.4 and in case such a representation was made, the opposite party no.4 was directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 4. While rejecting the petitioner's representation, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alapur has stated in the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 that consequent to death of the fair price shop owner Shri Srinath Pandey, his fair price shop license was cancelled by means of an order dated 04.04.2023. Shri Om Prakash Pandey, son of Late Srinath Pandey, had applied for allotment of the shop a as dependent of the deceased fair price shop owner, in accordance with the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. The aforesaid Government Order provides that in case of death of a fair price shop owner, his dependent may given an application for allotment of the shop within 30 days of death of the deceased fair price shop owner, along with no objection certificate issued by other adult members of the deceased family, provided the applicant fulfills the eligibility conditions for allotment of fair price shop. The definition of family for this purpose would include the following persons:- (i) Head of the family; (ii) Husband/wife and legally adopted children; (iii) Children fully dependent on the head of the family; (iv) Unmarried, judicially separated and widowed daughter; (v) Mother/Father, who are wholly dependent on the Head of the Family. 5. The definition of family for this purpose would include the following persons:- (i) Head of the family; (ii) Husband/wife and legally adopted children; (iii) Children fully dependent on the head of the family; (iv) Unmarried, judicially separated and widowed daughter; (v) Mother/Father, who are wholly dependent on the Head of the Family. 5. The eligibility conditions for allotment of a fair price shop is that the candidate must have passed at least High School or equivalent examination. 6. Shri Om Prakash Pandey son of the deceased-licensee, did not possess this eligibility qualification of having passed the High School examination and, therefore, his application could not be accepted. 7. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Writ - C No.1665 of 2004 in this Court which was disposed of by means of the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2024 and thereafter the petitioner has applied for grant of a fair price shop license under the provisions the Government Order dated 05.08.2019, which provides for grant of fair price shop license to dependents of deceased fair price shop licensee. 8. The petitioner's application has been rejected on the ground that he is a grandson of the deceased fair price shop licensee and the grandson is not included in the definition of family given in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be allotted a fair price shop as dependent of the deceased fair price shop licensee under provisions of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. 9. While challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the judgment of order dated 03.09.2020 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.13015 (MS) of 2020, this Court had relied upon an earlier order dated 20.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2899 (MS) of 2015 (Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Food & Rasad Department and two others), wherein the Court had observed that son of the deceased, fair price shop licensee had predeceased him, the definition of family can be enlarged and had directed the competent authority to consider the claim of a grandson of the deceased fair price shop licensee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance an order dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Court sitting at Allahabad in Writ - C No.32392 of 2021, wherein this Court relied on the decisions of Ashok Kumar and Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) and held that grandson was included in the definition of family. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on an order dated 24.01.2024 passed by this Court in Writ - C No.336 of 2024, wherein this Court has followed the earlier order passed in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra). 10. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that during life time of the fair price shop licensee, the petitioner, who is grandson, used to work along with him and assist him running the shop. 11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the State Government has framed a policy for grant of fair price shop license to dependents of deceased fair price shop owners on compassionate ground, by issuing a Government Order dated 05.08.2019. As a matter of policy, the Government decided that in case of death of a fair price shop licensee, son of dependents, who are members of his family and who fulfill the other eligibility conditions, may be considered for allotment of fair price shop on compassionate basis. The family members include head of the family, husband/wife; children, including adopted children, who are wholly dependent on head of the family, unmarried, judicially separated or widowed daughter and parents, who are wholly dependents on the head of the family. This does not include any other person. Subsequently, numerous orders were passed by this Court enlarging the scope of family given in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. 12. The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court a copy of the Government Order dated 28.02.2022, whereby besides the members of family already mentioned in the earlier Government Order dated 05.08.2019, the daughter-in-law, who is wholly dependent on the head of the family, has also been included in the definition of the family. 13. 12. The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court a copy of the Government Order dated 28.02.2022, whereby besides the members of family already mentioned in the earlier Government Order dated 05.08.2019, the daughter-in-law, who is wholly dependent on the head of the family, has also been included in the definition of the family. 13. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that after taking into consideration various orders passed by this Court, the State Government thought it proper to modify its policy only to the extent of inclusion of wholly dependent daughter-in-law definition of family and the State Government did not include grandson of the deceased fair price shop owner in the definition of family. He further submitted that neither the petitioner has challenged validity of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 or the subsequent Government Order dated 28.02.2022, wherein the grandson of the deceased fair price shop owner have not been included in the definition of family for the purpose of grant of fair price shop license on compassionate basis consequent to death of the fair price shop licensee, nor can the policy be challenged in absence of the same being suffering from unreasonableness. He has placed reliance on decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.89 2022, decided on 21.02.2022, wherein the Division Bench found that the policy does not suffer from any Wednesburry unreasonableness. 14. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the definition of family given in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 is the same as given in Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution Control) Order, 2016. 15. The Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Control Order, 2016’) was framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with the object of maintaining the supplies of foodgrains and other essential commodities and for securing its equitable distribution at fair prices under the targetted Public Distribution System. Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016 defines the word ‘family’ as under: “Family” means group of following persons— - Head of the family - Husband/wife, including legally adopted children. - Adult children, who are fully dependent on the head of the family. Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016 defines the word ‘family’ as under: “Family” means group of following persons— - Head of the family - Husband/wife, including legally adopted children. - Adult children, who are fully dependent on the head of the family. - Unmarried, legally separated and widow daughters; and - Fully dependent mother/ Father, of the head of the family. 16. In Kusumlata v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 1025, the petitioner, who was a married daughter of the deceased fair price shop holder, had prayed for being appointed in place of her father under the dying in harness rule prescribed under Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Act (Rules and Distribution Order, 2016). Subsequently, by means of an amendment application, challenge to the constitutional validity of Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 defining the word ‘family’, was also made. The Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner being a married daughter, was not residing in the village and she was not eligible for being appointed in place of her deceased father on compassionate ground. 17. While upholding the decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench held in Special Appeal that “Neither the word ‘unmarried’ used in the definition of the word ‘family’ as defined under the Government Order, 2019 is discriminatory nor the petitioner is eligible for appointment as fair price shop agent inasmuch as she is not resident of the locality where the Fair Price Shop in question is established and thus, she does not even fulfil basic eligibility criteria provided in Clause IV(5) of the Government Order, 2019” 18. This Court can make any interference in policy laid down by the Government for compassionate appointment of the dependants of deceased fair price shop holders, only on the limited grounds recognized by law in this regard. 19. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “59.…What is best for the sugar industry and in what manner the policy should be formulated and implemented, bearing in mind the fundamental object of the statute, viz., supply and equitable distribution of essential commodity at fair prices in the best interest of the general public, is a matter for decision exclusively within the province of the Central Government. Such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review.” 20. In M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592 , it was laid down that: - “41.…The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of the three organs of the State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasised. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields.” 21. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields.” 21. As the Government has framed a policy for compassionate appointment of dependants of deceased fair price shop licensees by issuing the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and it has decided to adopt the same definition of family for the purpose of compassionate appointments as is mentioned in Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016, and when this Court interfered in some matters to enlarge the scope of this definition, the Government decided to amend the policy and issued another Government Order dated 28.02.2022 so as to modify the definition of family to the extent of including a daughter-in-law, who is wholly dependant on the head of the family and the Government did not think it proper to include a Grand-son of the deceased also to be eligible for compassionate appointment, this policy of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the Government’s policy to as to issue a direction for appointment of the Grand-son of the deceased fair price shop owner on compassionate ground. 22. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 4 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment as a fair price shop licensee consequent to the death of the petitioner’s grand-father. 23. The Writ Petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.