# STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR v. POTTA SANYASI RAO & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 423
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-08-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 14-08 of 1974
- **Bench:** A. Alaghz!Swami, P. K. GO'SWAMI A'<D N. L. U'.'iTWALIA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-v-potta-sanyasi-rao-ors-6616
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

E"ssential C'on11noditics Act, 1955, Ss. 2(a) (xi) and 5~Deiegatio11 to S1ate
C.iovernmenr po\l'er to 1nake Orders-Declaration of co111n10Jity as
essential
thercafter~State Goi:enunent, if can exercise delegated power H'irh respect 10
.l"lu:h co'n1n1odity.
In June, 1966_, the Central Governm·~nt, in exercise of the power-;. 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 re1ation to all_ essential commodities other than certain specified commodities. Tyres. and Tubes were not essential comn1odities under s.2(a) (i) to
(x), nor were they declared to be essential commodities by the Central Govern_
n1ent 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).
!n exercise of the delegated power the State of Andhra Pradesh i~uc<l the
Andhra Pradesh Tyres and Tubes Dealers' Licensing O·rder, 1973. The respondents, who are aealers in tyres and tubes, challenged the validity of the Order
on the ground that the· State Government had no power to issue an Or<.kr 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 GoYernment.
The High Court struck down the Order.
Allowing the appeal to this CDnrt.
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 commoditie5 declared essential by the Central Government from time to time under
s.2(a) (xi) even subsequent to the delegation.
Tt is not necessary that every
time the Central Government declares an essential commodity, it has Lilso to
pass an order of delegation with regard to that commodity.
It will be sufficient
in Jaw if on the date the State Government. duly empowered under s.5, nlakes
notification Under s.3 with regard to an es-sential commodity within the meaning
of s.2(a) including the residuary cl. (xi) thereof.
(4250-GJ

## Text

A
B
•
c
D
E
F
G
H
\
423
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
v.
POTTA SANYASI RAO & ORS.
August 26, 1975
[A. ALAGHZ!SWAMI, P. K. GO'SWAMI A'<D N. L. U'.'iTWALIA, JJ.J
E"ssential C'on11noditics Act, 1955, Ss. 2(a) (xi) and 5~Deiegatio11 to S1ate
C.iovernmenr po\l'er to 1nake Orders-Declaration of co111n10Jity as
essential
thercafter~State Goi:enunent, if can exercise delegated power H'irh respect 10
.l"lu:h co'n1n1odity.
In June, 1966_, the Central Governm·~nt, in exercise of the power-;. 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 re1ation to all_ essential commodities other than certain specified commodities. Tyres. and Tubes were not essential comn1odities under s.2(a) (i) to
(x), nor were they declared to be essential commodities by the Central Govern_
n1ent 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).
!n exercise of the delegated power the State of Andhra Pradesh i~uc<l the
Andhra Pradesh Tyres and Tubes Dealers' Licensing O·rder, 1973. The respondents, who are aealers in tyres and tubes, challenged the validity of the Order
on the ground that the· State Government had no power to issue an Or<.kr 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 GoYernment.
The High Court struck down the Order.
Allowing the appeal to this CDnrt.
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 commoditie5 declared essential by the Central Government from time to time under
s.2(a) (xi) even subsequent to the delegation.
Tt is not necessary that every
time the Central Government declares an essential commodity, it has Lilso to
pass an order of delegation with regard to that commodity.
It will be sufficient
in Jaw if on the date the State Government. duly empowered under s.5, nlakes
notification Under s.3 with regard to an es-sential commodity within the meaning
of s.2(a) including the residuary cl. (xi) thereof.
(4250-GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14-08 of 1974.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the
27th December, 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad
m Writ Petition No. 7413173.
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 hy
.
GoswAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the
.1udgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the
Andhra
Pi:ades~ Tyres and Tubes Dealers' Licensing Order 1973 (briefly the
L1censmg Order) was struck down as illegal and ultra vires.
·
424
SUPRE11E COCRT REPORTS
[1976] ] S.C.R.
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 th<':
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (bridly the Act) directed "t~at the
powers coferred on it by sub-section (I) of section 3 of the said Act
to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses
(dJ,
(c), (f), (g), (h), (i), (ii) and (j) of sub-section (2) thereof. ~hall
in relation to all cununodities other than foodstuffs and fertilise.rs
(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 JU in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution".
Tvres a11d tubes are not included in the ten specified commodities
in section 2(a). However. the Central Government by three notified
orders, namely, S.0. 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 confcrm.l by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act read with S.O. No.
1844 dated J unc 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 Govcrn1nent 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 earli'er on June
18. 1966.
Their contention was accepted by the High Conrt and
the Liccnsinl! Order was struck down.
Hence this appeal by special
leave at the mstance of the State Government
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the
order of delegation of power by the Cenitral Government under section 5 enabling the State Government to make orders· or issne notifications under section 3 would empower the State Government to
A
B
•
c
...
D
E
F
G
•
H
A
B
•
c
D
F
•
H
A. P. STATE v. P. s. RAO (Goswami, J.)
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 suoh 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) upto 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 <led a red essential by the Central Government from time to time under
sectioll 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 delegaion is confined to essential commodities specified under the
Act and such others as may be declared by the Central Government
upto the order of delegation.
Delegation of power to the State Government to act under sectiCln 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 meanir1g 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 cons•ruing
the order of delegation under section 5 of the Act.
The Licensing
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
r 1976] I s.C.R.
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 a/lowed.
A
•
•
•