JUDGMENT Bhan, J.
1. The appellants herein filed a writ petition in the High Court ofGujarat challenging the constitutional validity of an order made o26th July, 2000 in pursuance of Sub-clause (1) of Clause 24 of theGujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control Stock Declaration)Order, 1981 (for short 'the State Order of 1981') amending an earlierorder dated 14th August, 1998 by substituting the storage limits inrespect of dealers and thereby providing that no dealer shall either byhimself or by any person on his behalf store or have in his possessionat any time any edible Oilseeds or edible oils in excess of thequantities specified thereunder, which were 1000 quintals forwholesaler of edible Oilseeds including groundnut in shell, and 100quintals for retailer (all edible Oilseeds taken together); and 300quintals for the wholesaler of edible Oilseeds including groundnuts inshell, and 100 quintals for retailer (all edible Oilseeds taken together);and 300 quintals for the wholesaler and 20 quintals for the retailer(all edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oils). The orderdated 14th August, 1998 in which the amendment was made by theimpugned order of 26th July, 2000 provided the stock limits for theaforesaid items which were 2000 quintals for edible Oilseedsincluding groundnut in shell for the wholesaler and 100 quintals forthe retailer. It provided the stock limits of 600 quintals in respect ofedible oils for the wholesaler and 20 quintals for the retailer.
2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it is necessary totrace the history of various orders issued by the Central Governmentand the State of Gujarat under Section 3 of the Essential CommoditiesAct, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. By virtue of its powers under Section 3 of the Act the CentralGovernment issued the Pulses, Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order,1977, which contained provisions regarding licence to be obtained bythe dealers and the stock limits that will have to be observed by them.The Government of the State of Gujarat issued "Gujarat Pulses andEdible Oils Dealers Licensing Order, 1977" in exercise of itsdelegated powers and with express reference to the control orderalready issued by the Central Government in the year 1977. TheCentral Government repealed the Pulses and Edible Oils (StorageControl) Order of 1977 and issued another Order known as Pulses,Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 whichcontained the provisions relating to the licensing of dealers and stocklimits. The only difference between this order and the earlier order of1977 is that this Order included Edible Oilseeds also within itspurview.
4. The Central Government issued GSR 800 dated 9.6.1978whereby it delegated its power under Section 3 of the Act to the StateGovernments in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the said Act,which reads as under:
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND IRRIGATION (DEPARTMENT OF FOOD) ORDER New Delhi, the 9th June, 1978 G.S.R. 800 -- In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (10 of 1955) and in supersession of the Orderof the Government of India in the late Ministry ofAgriculture (Department of Food) No. G.S.R. 316(B), dated the 20th June, 1972, the CentralGovernment hereby directs that the powersconferred on it by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 ofthe said Act to make orders to provide for thematters specified in Clauses (a),(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (ii), and (j) and Sub-section(2) thereof shall, in relation to foodstuffs beexercisable also by a State Government subject tothe Conditions:-
(1) that such powers shall be exercised by aState Government subject to such directions,if any as may be issued by the CentralGovernment in this behalf;
(2) that before making an order relating to anymatter specified in the said Clauses (a), (c) or(f) or in regard to distribution or disposal offoodstuffs to places outside the State or inregard to regulation of transport of anyfoodstuff under the said Clause, (d), the StateGovernment shall also obtain the priorconcurrence of the Central Government and (3) that in making an order relating to any of thematters specified in the said Clause (j) theState Government shall authorise only anofficer of the Government.
No. 3 (Genl)(I)/78-D&R(I)-59 (Signed) K. Balkrishnan Deputy Secretary to the Government of India"
5. The "Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control)Order of 1977" issued by the Central Government and the "GujaratPulses and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing Order of 1977", which wasissued with specific reference to the Central Control Order, were inoperation from 1977 to 1981 governing the licensing of the dealers inEdible Oils and Edible Oilseeds and prescribing the storage controls.
6. In the year 1981, the State Government of Gujarat passed StateOrder of 1981 wherein Clause 3 required a licence to be taken fordealing in edible Oilseeds and edible oils. Clause 24 of this orderprovided for imposition of limits on stocks for Pulses, Edible Oilseedsand Edible Oils. This Control Order was issued by repealing thevarious existing Control Orders covering various essentialcommodities including the Gujarat Pulses and Edible Oil DealersLicensing Order of 1977. The State Order was issued with the priorconcurrence of the central Government.
7. The Central Government after reviewing the situationprevailing in the entire country with regard to the availability of theedible Oilseeds and edible oils decided to remove these commoditiesfrom the requirements of licensing and storage controls. On 10thNovember, 1997 the Central Government decided to amend its"Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order of1977" and accordingly deleted the items 'Edible Oilseeds and EdibleOils' in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Act, A letter wasaddressed on 13th November, 1997 by the Directorate of Vanaspati,Vegetable Oils & Fats to the Secretaries, Food & Civil SuppliesDepartment of all the State for compliance with the centralamendment order dated 10.11.1977.
8. The point raised in the writ petition was whether theGovernment of Gujarat was justified in issuance of a notificationunder Clause 24 of the State Order of 1981 requiring complianceregarding stock limits from the dealers of Edible Oil and EdibleOilseeds despite the fact that the Central Government by its orderdated 10.11.1997 had directed omission of edible Oilseeds and edibleoils from the purview of the Pulses and Edible Oils (Storage Control)Order of 1977.
9. Invoking the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 251, 254and 256 of the Constitution of India, the appellants challenged the"inaction" on the part of the State Government in not deleting "EdibleOilseeds and Edible Oils" from the list of essential articles in the StateOrder of 1981 and sought for a declaration that the State Order of1981 shall not apply to Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils. That thedirections issued in the impugned order dated 26.7.2000 were illegaland void. According to the appellants, the effect of the deleting of thewords "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" by the Central Governmentfrom the preamble and various clauses of the Central Order of 1977,required the State Government to delete these words from the StateOrder of 1981. The "inaction" on their part in not deleting the wordsEdible Oilseeds and Edible Oils from the State Order of 1981 was notpermissible. It was contended that whenever there was a conflictbetween the Central and the State Acts, Rules or Notifications issuedthereunder, the conflicting rules, policies, orders or notificationswould be illegal and void ab-initio to the extent of inconsistency withthe Central Act. According to the appellants, the effect of theamendment in the Central Order of 1977 was that no licence wasnecessary for "Edible Oilseeds and Edibles Oils" as earlier required byClause 3 of the Central Order which was now confined only to thepulses. That whenever Central Control Order is amended, suchamendment is deemed to be applicable to the Control Order of theState Government, and that the directions issued by the CentralGovernment are binding upon all the State Government. Anydirection issued by the State Government in disregard of the directionsof the Central Government would frustrate the very purpose of theamendment in the Central Order of 1977. Referring to the provisionsof Articles 251, 255 and 256, it was contended that the executivepower of the State is to be exercised so as to ensure compliance withthe laws and directions of the Union of India and therefore theimpugned order was required to be quashed and set aside being voidab-initio and in violation of the constitutional provisions. It wasstated that since Central Government had now permitted import of alltypes of edible oils such as cotton seed oil, sunflower oil, palmoline,soyabean oil etc. by lifting all the restrictions on their import and as aresult thereof it appears that the Central Government had thought it fitto delete "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" from the Central Order of1977, with a view to ensure smooth business operation withoutharassment to the dealers, traders and producers from the GovernmentOfficers.
10. The State of Gujarat in its affidavit in reply filed in the writpetition contested the petition by contending that there was no conflictbetween the Central and the State Orders, because the StateGovernment had passed the orders in exercise of its power underSection 3 read with Section 5 of the said Act read with the Orders ofthe Government of India made on 3.11.1974 and 9.6.1978 underSection 5. According to the State Government, it was empowered topass the impugned order under Clause 24(1) of the State Order of 1981and that these measures were required to be taken for controlling theregular supply and prices of the essential commodities. It waspointed out that the State Order of 1981 was issued after priorconcurrence of the Central Government with a view to maintainsupplies of essential commodities and securing their equitabledistribution and availability at fair prices.
11. Union of India in its reply supported the action of the StateGovernment in entirety. It stated that considering the fact that theState Governments would be the proper authorities to assess thesituation prevailing in their respective states in respect of certainessential commodities including "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" theCentral Government had notified several orders under Section 5 of thesaid Act delegating powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the said Actto the State Government. Such orders were notified in the years1972, 1974 and 1978. The State Government were duly empoweredto take appropriate measures to achieve the purposes mentioned inSection 3 of the said Act subject to the condition specified therein. Itwas stated that, in the earlier orders of 1972 and 1974 there was acondition to the effect that no Order should be issued in pursuance ofthe powers delegated if it was inconsistent with any of the Ordersissued by the Central Government under the Act. However, thiscondition was deleted in the Order of 1978, while retaining thecondition of prior concurrence of the Central Government beforeissuing an Order, as stated therein. That the Minister for Food, CivilSupplies and Consumer Affairs of the State of Gujarat by his letterdated 19th June, 1998 brought to the notice of the Minister for Foodand Consumer Affairs Department of Sugar and Edible Oil,Government of India, the unabated rise in prices of edible oil and inlight thereof, he expressed his view that it was absolutely imperativethat the State Government must have the power to enforce strictcontrol over the unscrupulous oil traders and millers. It was statedthat after the amendment in the Central Stock Control Order of 1977the oil traders and millers had a free hand, resulting in unprecedentedprice rise. The Government of India was therefore requested toreintroduce stock control at the earliest. In response to that letter, theMinister for Food and Consumer Affairs, Government of India, sent areply on 27th July, 1998 drawing the attention of the State Minister tothe Central Government's Order dated 9.6.1978 whereby the powersunder Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act were alreadydelegated to the State Government under Section 5. The StateGovernment was advised that, if it found appropriate, it could regulatethe storage, distribution etc. of "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils".
12. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that theprovisions of the State Order of 1981 could not operate because thepowers delegated earlier stood withdrawn in view of the amendmentby the Central Government in its own Central Order of 1977.
13. Aggrieved against the order of the Single Judge the State ofGujarat filed the letters patent appeals, which were accepted by theDivision Bench. Aggrieved by the order passed by the DivisionBench the present appeals have been filed.
14. Relying upon a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradeshin Writ Appeal No. 1546 to 1549 of 1998 decided on 30th June 1999(copy of which has been placed on the record) wherein a similaraction of the Government of Andhra Pradesh relating to the similarprovision was struck down and against which Special leave Petition(C) No.... CC 3461-3464 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court,counsel appearing for the appellants contended that to maintainconsistency in the orders passed by this Court these appeals should beaccepted and the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court be setaside otherwise different laws declared by different High Courts indifferent States would prevail leading to uncertainty and confusion.The submission is misconceived. Repeatedly, it has been held thatdismissal of special leave petition without a speaking order wouldonly mean that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion ingranting leave to file the appeal. It does not attract the doctrine ofmerger and the view expressed in the impugned order does notbecome the view of this Court. The dismissal of the special leavepetition by a non-speaking order would remain a dismissal simplicitorin which permission to file the appeal to this Court is not granted.This may be because of various reasons. It would not mean to be thedeclaration of law by this Court. In a recent judgment of three-memberBench in Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.,, after exhaustive consideration of the entire caselaw this Court has reaffirmed this position. Summing up theconclusion in Clause (iv) of para 44, it was held: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal maybe a non-speaking order or a speaking one. Ineither case it does not attract the doctrine ofmerger. An order refusing special leave to appealdoes not stand substituted in place of the orderunder challenge. All that it means is that the Courtwas not inclined to exercise its discretion so as toallow the appeal being filed."
Thus, the dismissal of the special leave petition in limine against thejudgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would not operate as abinding precedent taking away the jurisdiction of a co-equal Bench toadjudicate on the same point on merits in a case where the leave to filethe appeal has been granted. Submission that different laws would beprevalent in different States because of the different views expressedby different High Court thus creating uncertainty and confusioncannot be accepted as the law declared by this Court would be the lawprevalent in the country.
15. It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that the Stateorder of 1981 to the extent that it retains the essential commodities"Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" is repugnant to the Central Order of1977 from which these items were removed. Analogy was drawnfrom the legislative repugnancy between the laws of the Parliamentand the State Legislature on the same subject contained in theConcurrent List and it was contended that in case of repugnancy theCentral Law will prevail and the State must obey the executivedirections of the Central Government in view of the constitutionalscheme. It was argued that the State order of 1981 to the extent that itretains these foods items which stood repealed by the Central Law afterthese were deleted from it creates conflict between the Central Orderand the State Order. The contention was that the State was dutybound to obey the directions issued by the Union of India and delete"Edible Oilseed and Edible Oils" from the State Order of 1981.
16. The State Order of 1981 was issued by the State Governmentwith the prior concurrence of the Central Government under Section 3read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act. It provided forthe licensing, control and stock declaration of certain essentialcommodities including "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils". It wasissued as the State Government was of the opinion that the same wasnecessary and expedient for maintaining supplies of certain essentialcommodities and for securing their equitable distribution andavailability at fair prices. Clause 3(1) of the State Order of 1981provided that no person shall carry on business as a dealer in certainessential commodities including "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" ifthe stock of such essential articles in his possession at any timeexceeded the quantities specified in the table given below Clause 3.Clause 24 of this order provided:
"24. Power to issue directions to dealer orproducer:-
(1) The State Government, the Director of CivilSupplies, the Director of Food, the Collectorof a district or any licensing authority mayin accordance with the provisions of thisorder and for ensuring fair and equitabledistribution of essential article by general orspecial order, issue to any dealer or produceror class of dealers or producers suchdirections regarding maintenance ofaccounts, maintenance of stocks, storage,sale submission of returns furnishinginformation, display of prices, issuance ofinvoice or cash memo, weighment, disposal,delivery or distribution of any essentialarticle as it or he may deem fit.
(2) Every dealer or producer to whom anydirection is issued under Sub-clause (1) shallcomply with such direction."
17. The Central order of 1977, which extended to whole of India,was issued for maintaining supplies and for securing equitabledistribution and availability at fair prices of pulses, edible oilseeds andedible oils. The Clause 3 of the Central order of 1977 required aperson to obtain licence under the State Order for doing business as adealer in these items if the stocks of pulses or edible oilseeds or edibleoils in his possession exceeding the tabulated quantities.
18. Thus both the Central Government and the State Governmenthad issued orders in respect of "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils". Byvirtue of delegation, both the Central Government and the StateGovernment had powers to make orders under Section 3(1) of theAct. The State had issued the orders by virtue of delegation of powersunder Section 5 by the Central Government to the State Government.This apart, the State Legislature had the power to make lawsconcurrently with the Parliament, under Entry 33 of the ConcurrentList in respect of foodstuffs, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils. TheState Government, therefore, also had the executive power co-extensivewith its legislative power in respect of these items.
19. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Tika Ramji and Ors.etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1956 SCR 393, held thatthe provincial legislatures as well as central legislature would becompetent to enact laws on the same subject mentioned in theconcurrent list and the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by thecentral legislature, [Parliament] would not deprive State legislature ofsimilar powers. Both would be competent to enact such pieces oflegislation and no question of legislative competence would arise.The test of repugnancy would be whether the Parliament and the StateLegislature, in legislating under an Entry in the concurrent List,exercise their powers over the same subject matter or whether thelaws enacted by Parliament were intended to be exhaustive so as tocover the entire field. The question of repugnancy under Article 254of the Constitution would not arise where Parliamentary Legislationand State Legislation occupied different fields and dealt with separateand distinct matters even though of a cognate and allied character.After laying down the above principle it was held that none of theprovisions of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase)Act, 1953 or the Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act,overlapped, the center Act/Order, being silent with regard to some ofthe provisions which were enacted by the State and the State beingsilent with regard to some of the provisions which were enacted by thecenter. It was held that there being no repugnancy at all, the U.P.Sugarcane (Regulation, Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954 could notbe validly repealed by the Central Act, as was purported to be done byClause 7 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955.
20. Notification issued by Central Government dated 9th June, 1978delegated powers to the State Government under Section 5 of the saidAct (the contents of which have been reproduced in para 4 above).The exercise of powers to issue orders was made subject to directionsthat may be issued by the Central Government. A perusal of thenotification shows that prior concurrence of the Central Governmentwas required only before making an order relating to any mattersspecified in Clause (a), (b) or (f) or in regard to distribution or disposalof foodstuffs to place outside the State or in regard to regulation oftransport of any foodstuff under Clause (d). There was no requirementof prior concurrence imposed in respect of orders of matters whichrelate to intrastate. The State Order of 1981 was enacted with theprior concurrence of the Central Government. Clause 24 of the StateOrder conferring powers on the State Government to issue directionswould therefore be deemed to have been issued after obtaining priorconcurrence. Directions, which were issued under Clause 24 of theState Order of 1981 did not require any concurrence under theconditions imposed in the Notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegatingpowers to the State Government under Section 5 of the Act. Therewas no direction of the Central Government to the effect that the StateGovernment should not impose any stock limit under Clause 24 of theState Order. In fact, the Central Government had concurred with theState Government in issuance of the directions under the Order dated14th August, 1998 made under Clause 24 of the State Order of 1981.Even before the Court the Central Government had filed an affidavitshowing that it was agreeable to the issuance of such directions by theState Government and the Order dated 14th August, 1998 wasjustified.
21. By an Order dated 10th November, 1997 issued under Section 3of the Act the Central Government amended its Storage ControlOrder, 1997 by deleting the words "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils"from its preamble, title and from all other clauses so as to confine theOrder to pulses only. Therefore, on and from 10th November, 1997there remained no Central Order under Section 3 in respect of "EdibleOilseeds and Edible Oils". The State Order of 1981 which alsocontained stock limit provisions for licensing purposes similar tothose tabulated in the Central order, 1977 however continued tooperate. The point is whether the omission of the "Edible Oilseeds andEdible Oils" from the Central Order would impliedly repeal theprovisions relating to "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" from theState Order or would it cause any repugnancy between the two orders.The question of repugnancy would not arise when the field is notgoverned by both the Central and the State Orders in respect of thesame subject matter. There was no conflict between the provisions ofthe Central Government Order of 1977 relating to "Edible Oilseedsand Edible Oils" and those covering the same field in the State Orderof 1981. In any case question of conflict or repugnancy would notarise after these items were removed from the Central Order. Thequestion of conflict or repugnancy would not arise as the CentralOrder of 1977 ceased to govern the field as regards the "EdibleOilseeds and Edible Oils". Only the provisions of the State Order of1981 remained in the field. The Order dated 10th November, 1997 didnot purport to amend the State Order of 1981. The question ofimplied repeal of the provisions of the State Order of 1981 relating to"Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" would not arise. The omission of"Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" from the Central Government orderof 1977 would have no effect on the efficacy of the State Order of1981 which continued to operate having been framed by the StateGovernment under Section 3(1) read with Section 5 of the EssentialCommodities Act.
22. Referring to the letter dated 13th November, 1977 issued by theCentral Government through Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs,Department of Sugar and Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Directorateof Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats addressed to the Secretary, Foodand Civil Supplies Department of all the States and Union Territoriesto comply with the directions omitting the words "Edible Oilseeds andEdible Oils" from the Central Order of 1977, it was contended by ShriM.L. Verma, senior counsel appearing for the appellants that it wasthe duty of the State Government to carry out the directions issued bythe Central Government and delete the words "Edible Oilseeds andEdible Oils" from the State Order of 1981. We do not find anysubstance in this submission as well. By this letter the StateGovernments and the Union Territories were told that since from theClauses of Central Order the words "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils"had been deleted, the State Governments and the Union Territoriesshould ensure compliance with the amendment in so far as the CentralOrder of 1997 was concerned in relation to "Edible Oilseeds andEdible Oils". No direction had been issued to the State Governmentto delete the words "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" from the StateOrder of 1981 which was in operation. The compliance of the circularletter dated 13th November, 1997, would in the context mean that theState should take into account the deletion made in various clauses ofthe Central Order of 1977 so that it may not insist upon thecompliance of the Central order as it stood prior to its amendmentwhich imposed a duty on the dealers to give intimation regardingstocks of the "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" to the Collector(Clauses 4(2) of the Central Order) in respect of the stocks held byhim. The letter dated 13th November, 1997 cannot be construed tobe a direction to the State Government to amend the State Order, asthe State Order of 1981 did not derive its life from the Central Orderof 1977. The State Order of 1981 had been issued by the StateGovernment under Section 3(1) read with Section 5 of the EssentialCommodities Act coupled with the delegation of powers to the Stateto issue such orders and the same continued to operate in the absenceof any direction to delete these items from the State Order bywithdrawal or by delegation.
23. That the Central Government concurred with the StateGovernment to issue directions for putting the stock limit of EdibleOilseeds and Edible Oils can be gathered from the communicationsexchanged between State Minister for Food, Civil Supplies andConsumer Affairs of the State of Gujarat and the Minister for Foodand Consumer Affairs Department of Sugar and Edible Oil,Government of India. The State Minister in his letter dated 19th June,1998 had brought to the notice to the Central Minister that in view ofthe unabated rise in prices of edible oils it was necessary that the StateGovernment must have the powers to enforce strict control over theunscrupulous oil traders and millers. It was stated that after theamendment in the Central Stock Control Order of 1977 the oil tradersand millers had a free hand resulting in unprecedented price rise. TheGovernment of India was, therefore, requested to reintroduce stockcontrol at the earliest. In response to that letter, the Central Ministersent a reply on 26th July, 1998 drawing the attention of the StateMinister to the Central Government's Order dated 9.6.1978 wherebythe powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act werealready delegated to the State Government under Section 5. The StateGovernment was advised that, if it found appropriate, it could regulatethe storage, distribution etc. of "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils". Itwas stated that the State Government would be appropriateauthority to take decision regarding the permissible stock limits andthe turnover period within the area of its jurisdiction. Only thereafterthe State Government issued the letter dated 14th August, 1998 inexercise of its power under Clause 24(1) of the State Order of 1981which was later on amended by the impugned order dated 26th July,2000.
24. Although, we are of the opinion that no prior occurrence wasrequired before issuing the order dated 14th August, 1998 andfollowed by the Order dated 26th July, 2000 fixing the stock limits of"Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" but even if there was required to beprior concurrence there could never be a clearer concurrence to theState Government's request for applying the State Order of 1981which was issued by the State with prior concurrence after thedelegation of the powers to it under the notified order dated 9th June,1978. The concurrence of the Central Government on issuance of theorders dated 14th August, 1998 and 26th July, 2000 though not strictlyrequired was writ large in the communications of the concerned UnionMinister and the Secretary of the concerned Department of the CentralGovernment. The Central Government in its affidavit filed in theseproceedings stood by the State Government in respect of issuance ofthe directions under Clause 24(1) of the State Order of 1981specifying the stock limits.
25. The State Order of 1981 already contained a stock limit in thetabulated form in Clause 3 thereof in the context of obtaining alicence. Under Clause 24(1) of the State Order of 1981 the StateGovernment could issue directions to dealers or purchasers, inter alia,regarding maintenance of stock, storage, display of prices etc. andevery dealer or producer to whom such direction was issued, wasrequired to comply with the same. By orders dated 14th August, 1998and 26th July, 2000 the State Government only modified the stocklimits.
26. Reliance placed by the counsel for the appellants on DistrictCollector, Chittoor and Ors. v. Chittoor District Groundnut TradersAss. Chittor and Ors., , in support of his case ismisplaced. In the said case this Court was concerned with theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers(Licencing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and the question regardingthe validity of imposition of restriction on export of groundnut seedand oil to outside the State and directions of compulsory levy atspecified price. In paragraph 6 it was noted that: "... The 1982 Order which was framed bythe State Government in exercise of the delegatedpowers does not contain any provision placing anyrestriction on the transport or movement of theedible oil or oil seeds not it provides forimposition of compulsory levy, further it does notfix any price. The directions issued by thegovernment placing restriction on the movement ofoil seeds and oil and imposing compulsory levyand requiring millers and traders to sell oil seedsand oil at a price fixed by it, are outside thepurview of the 1982 Order. Those directions haveso sanction of law...."
27. On this finding it was held that the directions issued by theGovernment placing restrictions on the movements of oilseeds and oiland imposing compulsory levy and requiring millers and traders tosell oil seeds and oil at a price fixed by it were outside the purview ofthe 1982 order. The directions issued did not have the sanction oflaw. It was observed that if the State Government was facing anyproblem, it could have made amendments in the 1982 Orderregulating matter specified in Clauses (d) and (f) of Section 3(2) ofthe Act after obtaining the prior concurrence of the CentralGovernment. As no such course was followed it was held that thedirections contained in the Government Order were illegal and void asthey were in contravention of the powers delegated to the StateGovernment under notification dated 9.6.1998. The Order issued bythe State Government was held to be outside the purview of 1982Order and thus struck down.
28. Facts situation in the present case is totally different. As hasbeen discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the State Order of 1981had been issued after the delegation of the power to the StateGovernments by the Central Government and with prior concurrenceof the Central Government. Stock limits were provided in thetabulated form in Clause 3 and further State Government or itsofficer were authorised under Clause 24(1) of the State Order of1981 to issue directions regarding maintenance of stock, storage,display of prices etc.. Thus the State Government had the legislativesanction to promulgate the State Order of 1981 as well as the authorityto issue directions to the dealers regarding maintenance of stock,storage, display or prices etc. under the provisions of the State Order.This impugned order of 26th July, 2000 had been issued in exercise ofthe jurisdiction conferred under the State Order of 1981 and thereforevalid.
29. For the reasons stated above we do not find any merit in theseappeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as tocosts.