The delegation of legislative power to the Executive Government is permissible and is not in conflict with any constitutional principle, provided that the policy of the law is fully indicated in the Act itself, the powers given to the Executive Government are unavoidable and inevitable, the Executive Government is required to work under the directions prescribed by the law, and the Legislature retains its whole power of control intact.

Shearer, J.

1. An order of demand made under the Bihar Agriculturists Levy Order, 1950 was served on the petitioner Syed Mohammad Anzar Husnain, requiring him to deliver a certain quantity of paddy to a person and at a place named in the order. The petitioner did not comply with the order and was, in consequence, prosecuted. An application was then made to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution, and as questions of constitutional law arose, this Court withdrew the case from the Court of the trying Magistrate in order that these questions might be decided. The questions that arose are, in the first place, whether the extent of the delegation of legislative or quasi legislative power made by the legislature to the executive in Sec.3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, is in excess of that permissible under the Constitution, & secondly, whether certain provisions contained in the Bihar Agriculturists Levy Order, 1950, violate the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 and Article 19, Clauses (f) and (g) of the Constitution. These questions are of far-reaching importance, and his Lordship the Chief Justice constituted myself and my brothers Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prosad, JJ. as a Special Bench to determine them.

2. The impugned Act is not a mere skeleton or frame-work, that is, it does not merely state in general terms the object which the legislature has in view and then delegate to an outside authority a completely untrammelled power to take any steps whatever which it may consider necessary or desirable to achieve that object. It is interesting to compare it with the Food-stuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act, 1931, which was enacted by British Parliament when Great Britain went off the gold standard in order to meet a situation comparable with that with which the Indian legislature had to deal. The English Act is described in the preamble as:

"an Act to authorise the Board of Trade in case of need to take exceptional measures for preventing or remedying shortages in, or unreasonable increase in the price of, certain articles of food or drink."

Sec.1(1) of the Act left it entirely to the Board of Trade to decide what the articles of food or drink should be, merely postulating that in its opinion they should be articles of food or drink of general consumption. The impugned Act, on the other hand, defines with the greatest particularity what an essential commodity is. Again, the English Act, after conferring on the Board of Trade a power to make regulations, went on to state that such regulations might

"confer or impose on any person or body of persons, such powers or duties as the Board of Trade may consider necessary or expedient for effecting the purpose aforesaid."

Sub-section (2) of Sec.3 of the impugned Act, on the other hand, lays down the broad outlines of the policy which the Indian legislature wished to adopt in order to achieve its purpose. It is true, that while laying down the policy parliament left it to the executive to work out in detail the administrative measures necessary to render the policy effective and successful. It was inevitable that legislation of this kind should take the form which it did. India is a sub-continent and conditions vary greatly in different parts o£ it. Clause (b) of Sec.3(2) of the impugned Act authorises the making of orders for the purpose of bringing waste or arable land under cultivation. It is obvious that in one part of India there may be a great deal more waste or arable land than in another, and that steps effective to bring such land under cultivation in one part of India may be quite ineffective in another.

Clause (i) of Sec.3(2) authorizes the making of orders requiring certain persons to maintain and produce for inspection books, accounts and records, relating to their business. It is obvious that the books, accounts and records, which it might be reasonable to require such persons to maintain in Madras, might be books, accounts & re