VENKATESWARA RAO, J. - The constitutionality of section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which will hereinafter be referred to as the "Act" to the extent it purports to empower the officer in charge of the check post or barrier to seize goods which are not covered by a way bill containing the prescribed particulars and to confiscate them if the penalty levied is not paid, is sought to be questioned in these writ petitions.

The Anantapur District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. is the first petitioner in W.P. No. 4815 of 1968 while the second petitioner therein is a private transport company. Their case is that while "urea" released in favour of the first petitioner by the Joint Director of Food was being transported from Vijayawada to Hindupur in a lorry belonging to the second petitioner on 19th June, 1968, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Narasaraopet (R-1), stopped the vehicle and seized the goods on the ground that the way bill relating to them was defective and later passed an illegal order dated 1st September, 1969, confiscating 160 bags of urea. The facts giving rise to the other W.P. No. 5101 of 1968 are almost similar to those of W.P. No. 4815 of 1968. The petitioner in this case is a registered dealer carrying on wholesale business in jaggery. When 262 bags of jaggery purchased on his behalf in the Chittoor district were being transported to his place of business at Machilipatnam on 18th October, 1968, by means of a lorry, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor (R-2), stopped the vehicle at a place lying 3 or 4 miles away from Chittoor though there was no check post there and high-handedly seized the goods notwithstanding that the way bill relating to them contained the required particulars, and had the same removed to his office at Chittoor. The next day he passed an order to the effect that the jaggery was seized pending further enquiry into the matter as the purchase vouchers were found to be concocted. All the efforts of the petitioner to convince him that the goods were not liable to be seized proved futile and he ultimately served the petitioner with a notice dated 15th November, 1968, proposing to levy a penalty of Rs. 1,675.92 under section 29 of the Act. This act of the second respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence these petitions for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Narasaraopet, dated 1st September, 1968, and a writ of mandamus directing the Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor, to restore the 262 bags of jaggery seized by him, respectively.

The principal ground on which the legality of the seizures and the subsequent order confiscating the goods and proposing a penalty are questioned is that section 29 of the Act, in so far as it purports to empower the officer in charge of the check post or barrier or other officer, if any, empowered under sub-section (2) thereof to seize the goods and also to confiscate them if the penalty levied in respect of those goods is not paid within the time prescribed is ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature besides being violative of the provisions of articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India.

In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to notice the section which reads as under :

"29. Establishment of check post or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit. - (1) If the State Government or the Board of Revenue consider or considers it necessary that with a view to prevent or check evasion of tax under this Act in any place or places in the State, it is necessary so to do, the State Government or the Board of Revenue may by notification direct the setting up of a check post or the erection of a barrier, or both, at such place or places as may be notified.

(2) At every check post or barrier mentioned in sub-section (1) or at any other place when so required by any officer empowered by the State Gov