State of Andhra Pradesh & ANR Vs.
Potta Sanyasi Rao & Ors [1975] INSC 178 (26 August 1975)
GOSWAMI, P.K.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
CITATION: 1975 AIR 2030 1976 SCR (1) 423 1975
SCC (2) 480
ACT:
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Ss. 2(a)(xi)
and 5- Delegation to State Government power to make Orders- Declaration of
commodity as essential thereafter-State Government, if can exercise delegated
power with respect to such commodity.
HEADNOTE:
In June, 1966, the Central Government, in
exercise of the powers conferred by s. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
delegated its power to make Orders to the State Governments with respect to
certain matters specified in s.
3(2) in relation to all essential commodities
other than certain specified commodities. Tyres and Tubes were not essential
commodities under s. 2(a)(i) to (x), nor were they declared to be essential
commodities by the Central Government under s. 2(a)(xi) at the time of the
delegation;
but, subsequent to the delegation of the
power to the State Governments, certain types of tyres and tubes were declared
to be essential commodities under s. 2(a) (xi).
In exercise of the delegated power the State
of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra Pradesh Tyres and Tubes Dealers' Licensing
Order, 1973. The respondents, who are dealers in tyres and tubes, challenged
the validity of the Order on the ground that the State Government had no power
to issue an Order with regard to tyres and tubes which were declared by the
Central Government to be essential commodities after the delegation of powers
to the State Government. The High Court struck down the Order.
Allowing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : There is nothing in s. 5 to limit the
power of delegation in favour of the State Government only to the commodities
specified in s. 2(a)(i) to (x) or to those commodities declared essential under
s. 2(a)(xi) up to the date of delegation. Delegation under s. 5 is a general
delegation and will enure in favour of exercise of power by the State
Government with respect to commodities declared essential by the Central
Government from time to time under s. 2(a)(xi) even subsequent to the
delegation. It is not necessary that every time the Central Government declares
an essential commodity, it has also to pass an order of delegation with regard
to that commodity. It will be sufficient in law if on the date the State
Government duly empowered under s. 5, makes notification under s. 3 with regard
to an essential commodity within the meaning of s.
2(a) including the residuary cl. (xi)
thereof. [425D- G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 1408 of 1974.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and
order dated the 27th December, 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 7413/73.
R. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the
appellant.
Govind Das and Girish Chandra, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the Andhra Pradesh Tyres and Tubes
Dealers' Licensing Order 1973 (briefly the Licensing Order) was struck down as
illegal and ultra vires.
424 A few facts which are material may first
be noted.
By Notification S.O. 1844 dated June 18,
1966, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (briefly the Act) directed "that
the powers conferred on it by sub- section (1) of section 3 of the said Act to
make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses (d), (e), (f), (g),
(h), (i), (ii) and (j) of sub-section (2) thereof shall in relation to all
commodities other than foodstuffs and fertilisers (whether inorganic, organic
or mixed), be exercisable also by a State Government, or in relation to a Union
Territory, by the administrator thereof, subject to the following
conditions...." Section 2(a) of the Act defines "essential
commodity" which means ten specified commodities and the residuary clause
(xi) thereof refers to- "any other class of commodity which the Central
Government may, by notified order, declare to be an essential commodity for the
purposes of this Act, being a commodity with respect to which Parliament has
power to make laws by virtue of entry 33 in List III in the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution".
Tyres and tubes are not included in the ten
specified commodities in section 2(a). However, the Central Government by three
notified orders, namely, S.O. No. 2511 dated August 17, 1966, S.O. No. 2878 of
August 22, 1968 and S.O. No. 85 dated January 3, 1969, declared cycle tyres and
tubes, car and tractor tyres and tubes and tyres of buses, vans, trucks, etc.
as essential commodities under section 2(a) (xi).
The impugned Licensing Order was passed by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh on June 18, 1973 in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act read with S.O. No. 1844
dated June 18, 1966 and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government.
The respondents, who were dealers in tyres and tubes of buses, trucks, jeeps,
cars and other auto-vehicles, challenged the validity of the Licensing Order on
the ground that the State Government had no power to issue the same with regard
to tyres and tubes which were declared by the Central Government to be
essential commodities subsequent to the delegation of powers to the State
Government under section 5 which had been made earlier on June 18, 1966. Their
contention was accepted by the High Court and the Licensing Order was struck
down. Hence this appeal by special leave at the instance of the State
Government The short question that arises for consideration is whether the
order of delegation of power by the Central Government under section 5 enabling
the State Government to make orders or issue notifications under section 3
would empower the State Government to 425 promulgate orders with regard to
commodities which were declared to be essential commodities by the Central
Government subsequent to the order of delegation.
Section 5 of the Act reads as follows:-
"The Central Government may, by notified order, direct that the power to
make orders or issue notifications under section 3 shall, in relation to such
conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also
by- (a) such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government, or (b)
such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State
Government, as may be specified in the direction." There is nothing in
section 5 to limit the power of delegation in favour of the State Government only
to the commodities specified in section 2(a) or to those commodities declared
essential under section 2(a) (xi) up to the date of delegation. Delegation
under section 5 is a general delegation and will enure in favour of exercise of
power by the State Government with respect to commodities declared essential by
the Central Government from time to time under section 2(a)(xi) even subsequent
to the order of delegation. It is not necessary that every time the Central
Government declares an essential commodity it has also to pass an order of
delegation under section 5 with regard to that commodity. Reading section 5 and
section 3 together there is no warrant for the view that the power of
delegation is confined to essential commodities specified under the Act and such
others as may be declared by the Central Government up to the order of
delegation. Delegation of power to the State Government to act under section 3
is not restricted to any specified essential commodity as such.
It will be sufficient in law if on the date
the State Government, duly empowered under section 5, makes a notification
under section 3 with regard to an essential commodity within the meaning of
section 2(a) including the residuary clause (xi) thereof. All that is required
is that the commodity, on the date of the order of the State Government,
answers the description of the clauses in section 2(a) of the Act. The fact
that a commodity is declared essential after the order of delegation does not
affect the exercise of power by the State Government under section 3 of the
Act. The High Court is, therefore, not right in narrowly construing the order
of delegation under section 5 of the Act. The Licensing 426 Order is,
therefore, not invalid on the ground that the tyres and tubes were declared to
be essential commodities by the Central Government after the order of
delegation under section 5 of the Act.
In the result the appeal is allowed and the
judgment of the High Court is set aside. There will be, however, no order as to
costs.
V.P.S. Appeal allowed.
Back
