JUDGMENT

SINGH, J.—These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. D/- 11-2-1987, (reported in AIR 1988 AP 317). affirming the judgment of a learned single Judge of that Court allowing the respondents writ petitions made under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing the State Governments Order, dated 21-6-1985.

2. The respondents are oil millers and traders who carry on business in the sale and purchase of groundnut seed and groundnut seed oil which is edible. The millers purchase groundnuts and manufacture oil in their mills thereafter they sell the same in the State and outside the State. Similarly the traders purchase the groundnut seed and groundnut oil and sell the same in the State and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State Government issued a circular Order dated 21-6-1985 containing directions regulating the transport and export of groundnut seeds and oil outside the State. The oil millers and traders were permitted to export oil and groundnut seeds only on the condition contained in the Order according to which all millers and traders were required to deliver oil to the State Government at a fixed price in proportion of one tonne of oil for every three tonnes to be transported outside the State and similarly a trader was required to supply to the State Government one tonne of oil for every five tonnes of groundnut seeds proposed to be transported outside the State on the price fixed by the State Government. The oil millers and traders were required to execute undertaking for complying with the directions issued by the State Government. The Government Order warned the oil millers and traders that action would be taken against them if they failed to comply with the directions of the Government. In substance the State Government imposed compulsory levy on oil millers and traders on the transport and export of groundnut oil and seeds. The respondents challenged the validity of the order of the State Government by means of writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A learned single Judge quashed the Order of the State Government on the findings that the directions contained therein violate Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution. On appeal by the State Government a Division Bench of the High Court held that the Government Order was violative of Section 3(2)(f), Section 3(3)-B and Section 3(5) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the directions contained in the Order amounted to imposition of levy which could not be done without obtaining prior concurrence of the Central Government in terms of Section 3(2)(f) of the Act. The Bench further held that the directions contained in the impugned Government Order are outside the power of the State Government under clause 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing & Distribution) Order 1982. The Division Bench did not record any finding on the question whether the Government Order violated the constitutional guarantee of free trade under Article 301 of the Constitution.

3. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants contained that the directions contained in the Government Memo dated 21-6-1985 were issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under clause 12(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing & Distribution) Order 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Order) which had been made by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act. The impugned directions are legal and valid as the same are within the purview of 1982 Order. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants we find no merit in these appeals.

4. The 1982 Order was framed by the State Government in exercise of delegated powers under Section 3(1) of the Act with the prior concurrence of the C