MANJA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the Mysore Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order 1971 and the Notification bearing No. S.O.177 dated the 27th of January, 1971 issued under the said Order. Under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government is competent to issue orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein, if it is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, for maintaining or increasing supplies of essential commodities or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Under S.5 of the Act, the Central Government, by notified order, can empower the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government to exercise its powers under S.3, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the direction. The Central Government empowered the State Government to exercise specified powers under S. 3 of the Act by its order No.GSR 1111 Dated 24th of July, 1967. In exercise of the powers so delegated, the State Government of Mysore issued the Mysore Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1971 by its Notification dated 23rd of January 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). Sub-clause (3) of clause 1 of the Order states that the order shall come into force in such areas and on such dates as the Government may, by Notification in the official Gazette, specify. By a Notification dated 27th of January, 1971, issued under subclause (3) of clause 1 of the Order, the Government notified that the order shall come into force on the 15th of February, 1971 in the areas specified in the said Notification (hereinafter referred to as the Notification).

(2.) The petitioners are all dealers from different taluk headquarters of Hassan district, to which the order has been made applicable by the Notification. The petitioners have challenged various provisions of the Order as well as the Notification on several grounds.

(3.) The first contention of Sri R.N.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that sub-clause (3) of clause 1 of the Order suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. Sub-clause (3) of clause 1 of the Order empowers the State Government to bring into force the Order in such areas and on such date as the State Government, by notification, specifies. The order is issued by the State Government authorising itself under sub-clause (3) of clause 1 to issue a notification specifying the date of coming into force of the Order as well asthe areas of its operation. The resultant position is that the State Government, instead of specifying the date of coming into force of the order as well as the areas to which the order should apply, in the order itself, has done so by means of a separate notification. As sub-clause (3) of clause 1 issued by the State Government empowers the State Government itself to issue the notification, the question of delegation does not arise at all.