( 1 ) THIS group of Letters Patent Appeals has been preferred against the common order dated 15. 9. 2000, 19. 1. 2001 and 20. 1. 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting special civil applications filed by the wholesale dealers in essential commodity- kerosene. Notice was issued on the appeals and the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent State and its authorities were heard at length on the merits of the case. With their consent, the appeals are being finally decided by this common order.

( 2 ) ALL the appellants-petitioners who are wholesale dealers in essential commodity- kerosene are aggrieved by the impugned policy decision contained in the circulars of the State Government of Gujarat dated 30. 7. 1988, 4. 10. 1990, 3. 4. 1995, 6. 1. 1997, 29. 8. 1997, 22. 1. 1999, 5. 2. 2001 and 19. 6. 2001.

( 3 ) THE appellants are holding wholesale dealers licences for essential commodity- kerosene in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order,1981 which is issued in exercise of powers of the State of Gujarat delegated to it by the Central Government in accordance with section 5 read with section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter, for convenience, referred to as `licensing Order and `the Act respectively ). The appellants who are wholesale dealers in kerosene are aggrieved by the policy decision of the State of Gujarat contained in its impugned circulars whereby it has abolished completely a class of wholesale dealers appointed directly by the Licensing Authority under the Licensing Order. Under the policy decision contained in the circulars, on expiry of existing licences of wholesale dealers directly appointed by the Licensing Authority, the wholesale dealers licences in kerosene shall now be granted and continued only in favour of duly appointed agents of oil companies which are the producers or manufacturers of kerosene.

( 4 ) THE main grounds of challenge to the policy of the State Government in wiping out the appellants as a class of wholesale dealers directly appointed by the Licensing Authority and who are not duly appointed agents of the oil companies are , inter alia, that it deprives the appellants of their fundamental right to carry on trade guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and abolition of class of wholesale dealers cannot be done by administrative instructions or directions, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Licensing Order. Other grounds of challenge are based on the provisions of the Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that Licensing Order is a piece of delegated legislation under the Parent Act and without following the procedure provided in the Parent Act of making another statutory order to be notified in the official gazette, merely by impugned circulars or executive directions or instructions, the statutory provisions of the Licensing order cannot validly be changed. In this respect, it is submitted that the impugned circulars containing policy decision are in the nature of dictates to the Licensing Authority and interferes with the statutory function of the authorities under the Licensing Order. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: (1) dahyabhai Chaturbhai vs. State, 11 GLR 386; (2) somaji vs. Registrar,high court, 20 (20) GLR 646; (3) bhil Ambaji Bhanaji vs. State of Gujarat, 1996 (16) 2 GLR 272; (4) state of A. P. vs. Potta Sanyasi, AIR 1975 SC 2030; (5) union of India vs. Daljeet Singh,1999 (2) SCC 672; (6) krishna Mohan Shukla vs. Union of India, 2000 (10) SCC 507; (7) c. I. T vs. Sirpur Paper Mill,1999 (3) SCC 596 (8) union of India vs. Charanjit S. Gill, 2000 (5) SCC 742; (9) bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395.

( 5 ) ). ON behalf of the State Government, policy decision contained in the impugned circulars is sought to be supported on the ground that in the earlier public d