Article 254 of the Constitution of India does not apply to delegated legislation, and the State Government's power to make control orders under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is subject to the conditions set out in S. O. 681 (E) dated November 30, 1974.

K. M. GANGULI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge in Matter No. 1212 of 1986 allowing, the writ petition of the principal respondents in the instant appeal and quashing the first information report being No. 597 dated July 15, 1986 and the proceedings initiated thereon. The appellant authority was also directed to return the seized material, if any, till then lying in the appellant's custody. There was also an order of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant authority from interferring with storage of non-levy cement in the godowns of the writ petitioners or taking any further step in terms of the West Bengal Licencing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the State Control Order of 1982.

( 2 ) THE appellant authority initiated proceedings against the writ petitioners for the violation of paragraph 10 (1) of the aforesaid State Control Order of 1982 and paragraph 8 (1) and paragraph 2 (e) of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Control Order. It is not necessary to enter in detail into the facts and the arguments made at the bar before the: learned trial Judge.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the writ petitioners was- that the First Information Report did not disclose any offence and as such the same should be quashed. Such argument was based on the ground that the State Control Orders of 1977 and 1982 were not applicable in respect of non-levy cement which was virtually decontrolled by the amendment of Cement Control Order, 1967 in 1982. It may be mentioned here that the said Cement Control Order, 1967 was made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the provisions of section l8g of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

( 4 ) WE are to confine ourselves to certain questions of law involved in the case.

( 5 ) THE Central Government promulgated the Cement Control Order,. 1967 for control of price and equitable distribution of cement, By a subsequent amendment effected into the aforesaid Cement Control Order 196 in 1982 the Central Government released non-levy cement from its operation with effect from February 28, 1982 as a result of which non-levy cement became a non-essential commodity within the meaning of the Central Control Order.

( 6 ) UNDER section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Central Government is empowered to provide for regulating or, prohibiting3, production, supply and distribution of any essential commodity. Under section 5 of the said 1955 Act the power to make orders or issue notifications under section 3 can be delegated, inter alia, to the State Government and in such cases such power will be acquired by such State Government.

( 7 ) IN parenthesis it should also be noted that as it was sought to be urged by the appellants that an order made under section 3 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the said 1955 Act or any instrument having any effect by virtue of any enactment under any other Act.

( 8 ) WE have already found that non-levy cement was virtually released, from the restrictive provisions of the Cement Control Order, 1967 by its amendment in 1982 with effect from February 28, 1982 and in that very year the West Bengal Control Order of 1982 came into force.

( 9 ) BEREFT of verbiage the main contention of the writ petitioners seems to be that as non-levy cement was virtually decontrolled by 1982 Amendment made in the Cement Control Order, 1967 the State Government lost its authority power and jurisdiction to bring such non4evy cement within the perview of the State Control Order of 1982 because of the intervention of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners contended before the learned Trial Court that under the Central Order non-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document