JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of late K.R.Sivarajan, who was the Authorised Retail Distributor of Fair Price Shop No.23 in Mezhuvelli, Pathanamthitta District. While the petitioner was working as saleswoman in the shop, her father-in-law, who had become aged and sickly, nominated her for appointment as licencee of the Fair Price Shop. The requisite application, was also submitted, in terms of Paragraph 37(1) of the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021 ('the KTPDS Order' for short). However, the 3rd respondent rejected the nomination on the ground that the petitioner is not the legal heir of the licencee. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the District Collector and a revision filed before the Government met with the same fate. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Heard, Adv.Jacob P Alex and Senior Government Pleader Adv.Sunil Kuriakose. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities grossly erred in giving a restricted meaning to the term 'legal heir'. It is contended that the term 'legal heir' is not defined in the KTPDS Order and nomination for transfer of licence is not similar to the succession of property under personal laws. Being so, the expression 'legal heir', used in Paragraph 37(1) of the KTPDS Order should be understood in the ordinary parlance. Relying on the decisions in Gulzara Singh Nanta Singh v. Smt.Tej Kaur [ AIR 1961 P&H 288 ], Mercy v. Aisha Ummal [ 1987 2 KLT 166 ] and Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd and another v. Shobha and others [(2006) 13 SCC 737], it is argued that, in ordinary parlance, the expression 'heir' takes in all persons entitled to property held and possessed by or under the law of inheritance. Referring to Exts.P6(a) and P9 judgments, it is submitted that, under similar circumstances, this Court had directed the authorities to consider the nomination of a daughter-in-law as the licencee. Alternatively it is contended that, having worked as salesperson of the ARD for more than ten years, the petitioner is even otherwise entitled to be appointed as licencee as provided in Paragraph 37(5) of the KTPDS Order. 4. In reply, learned Government Pleader submitted that daughter-in-law cannot claim the status of a 'legal heir', since legal heirship is decided in accordance with the personal law of the deceased. 4. In reply, learned Government Pleader submitted that daughter-in-law cannot claim the status of a 'legal heir', since legal heirship is decided in accordance with the personal law of the deceased. It is pointed out that the application submitted by the licencee did not also contain the nomination in Form 'J' Annexure X, which is mandatory. The petitioner's claim under Paragraph 37(5) of the KTPDS Order is also not maintainable, since she does not have the requisite 10 years experience as a salesperson. 5. As the petitioner's claim for allotment of licence is based on Paragraph 37(1) of the KTPDS Order, the said provision is extracted hereunder for easy reference; “Licence by Nomination or Compassionate Ground or Salesman. (1) The existing Authorized Retail Distributors under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, who have obtained the licence provided under proviso to para 26, in the event of his being incapable of running the fair price shop owing to old age or illness or attaining the age of 70 years or in the event of death, may nominate his/her legal heir as the next licencee of such fair price shop. The willingness of the nominee shall also be produced along with nomination. Nomination shall be exercised in Form 'J' given at Annexure X.” 6. A reading of the provision reveals that, Paragraph 37(1) provides an option for the existing ARDs, under the Kerala Rationing Order to nominate his/her legal heir as the next licencee. The short question is whether a daughter-in-law can be treated as legal heir for the purpose of such nomination. While learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the expression 'legal heir' cannot be construed in its strict sense considering the purpose of Paragraph 37(1), the counter argument of the learned Government Pleader is that daughter-in-law can be a heir, but not a legal heir and her nomination therefore cannot be accepted. The arguments makes it essential to note the subtle difference between the expressions 'heir' and 'legal heir. While 'heir' is a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit property titles or rights, 'legal heir' is recognised by law as a person entitled to inherit the property, titles or rights. A 'heir' may not necessarily have a formal legal claim, while a legal heir has a legal claim to inheritance. 7. While 'heir' is a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit property titles or rights, 'legal heir' is recognised by law as a person entitled to inherit the property, titles or rights. A 'heir' may not necessarily have a formal legal claim, while a legal heir has a legal claim to inheritance. 7. It is true that in Gulzara Singh Nanta Singh's case (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the expression 'heir' in Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, should be construed in a broad and general sense, so as to include all those on whom the estate of the deceased devolves, whether on intestacy or by means of a testamentary instrument like a will. Such an expansive interpretation cannot be adopted in the petitioner's case, since the law makers have consciously used the expression 'legal heir' in Paragraph 37(1). Here, it is pertinent to note that, going by Paragraph 37(3), a licence granted on nomination will be made permanent only on production of 'legal heirship certificate' issued by the competent authority. The procedure for issuance of legal heirship certificate stipulated in Clause 236 of the Kerala Village Manual reads as under; 8. On a conjoint reading of Paragraph 37 of the KTPDS Order and Clause 236 of the Village Manual it is apparent that the legal heirship, for the purpose of nomination by the existing licencees of Fair Price Shops will be governed by their personal law. 9. The alternative claim raised by the petitioner, relying on Paragraph 37(5) of the KTPDS Order cannot also be countenanced, since the petitioner does not have the requisite ten years experience as salesperson. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.