B SEETHARAMAYYA GUPTHA BUSINESS R O KURABALAKPTA MADANAPALLI TALUK CHITTOOR DISTRICT Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common thread that runs through these seven matters, writ petition as well as criminal revision cases, is the question relating to the validity of the delegation of powers under Sec. 6-A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 to the District Revenue Officers. On an earlier occasion, a division Bench of this Court upheld the validity of such delegation by its judgment dated 12-7-1971 in Crl. R.C.No. 319/70. When the writ petition and the Crl.R.C. No.627/74, which arise out of the same transaction, came up before Raghuvir, J, it was argued before him that the above said decision requires reconsideration. Our learned brother felt that it was proper that the two matters might be heard by a Division Bench. It is for that reason that they have come up before us. Since the prinicipal question in the other revision cases also is the same, they have been tagged on to the above two matters.

(2.) At this juncture it is not necessary to notice the facts of each case. We shall do that anon when we come to consider the merits. Sec. 6-A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) provides that where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under sec. 3 in relation thereto, it may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the District or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. It is now sufficient to notice that by and under G.O. Ms. 77 Revenue dated 22-1-67 as amended upto 12th July, 1973, the Government of Andhra Pradesh authorised the District Revenue Officers or the Personal Assis- stants to the District Collectors to exercise statutory functions which the Collectors of the District are enabled to do. Item 106 of the Annexure to the Notification in the said G.O. is "The ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, 1955" thus pro i ding for delegation of the powers of the Collectors of the District under the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 to the District Revenue Officers. This was done patently in exercise of the powers under Sec. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961. This Act received the assent of the President on 16th of September, 1961 and was published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 22nd of September. 1961. The question debated is whether this delegation of the powers of the District Collector to the District Revenue Officers is valid or not.

(3.) Sri Babul Reddy and Sri Ayyapu Reddy appearing for the petitioners put forward their challenge to the correctness of the delegation in the following manner:-The Essential Commodities Act is an Act made by the Indian Parliament. It empowers the Central Government to make orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, distribution and trade and Com merce in essential commodities. Subsection (2) of Sec. 3, which vests this power in the Central Government, particularises the matters in regard to which such orders could be issued Sec. (2) (a) defines the meaning of "Essential Commodity". It includes some matters which are in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in regard to which only the Union Parliament can make legis la tion. As an instance there of, petroleum and petroleum products occurring in clause(viii) in-Sec.2(a) is mentioned. Sec. 6-A authorises the Collector of the District to confiscate any essential commodity if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order. So, it is the Union Parliament which vested this power in the Collector of the District and it is the same body that could amend Sec.6-A delegating this power in the Collector of District to any other officer The ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 does not confer power even on the Central Government to delegate this power of the Collector to any other officer. Consequently, provision for delegation could be made only by an amendment to Sec. 6-A. The State Legislature or the State Government has no manner of power to delegate this authority to the District Revenue Officer. G. O. Ms. No. 77 purporting to delegate this power to the District Revenue Officers is wholly unconstitutional, illegal and unenforceable. This delegation is purported to have been done under the provisions of the State law viz., the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Delegation Act"). The State law cannot a mend Parliament's legislation. In any case, since in the list of essential commodities there are items which fall exclusively within List I, neither the State Legislature nor the State Government can usurp the power of authorising the District Revenue Officers to deal with these items contrary to the Parliament's decision as embodied in Sec.6-A. It was also urged on the basis of Art,254 (1) that the Central law shall prevail if there is inconsistency between it and the State law. It is true that under Sec. 5 of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, the Central Government may direct that the power to make orders or issue notifications under Sec. 3 be exerciseable also by a State Government or any officer or authority subordinate to it. But that delegation is limited only to the power of making orders or issuing notifications under Sec.3. It does not extend to deligation of powers under Sec. 6-A to some other officer other than the Collector of the District. It was, therefore, argued that the confiscation orders passed in these cases by the District Revenue Officers are invalid as they have been passed by officers who had no jurisdiction to do so.