The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is a valid law enacted in the public interest to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities. The delegation of powers under Section 5 of the Act is valid as it provides a framework for regulating essential commodities and does not confer arbitrary and unlimited power on the Central Government.

SARJOO PROSAD, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions for writs have been presented by certain commission agents and grain merchants of Ganganagar District. The common question raised in these applications is the constitutional validity of Sections3 and 5 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 - (Act X of 1955 hereinafter called the Act) and certain orders and notifications issued thereunder.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are brief. On 12-6-1958, the Central Government issued order No. 201 (25)/ 58-PY. 11 in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The order is called the Gram (Rajasthan)Price Control Order, 1958. It extends to the whole of the district of Shri ganganagar in the State of Rajasthan. By the order in question, the maximum price at which gram could be sold in wholesale quantity in the district was fixed at rs. 10. 50 per maund. This was exclusive of the cost of gunny bags. The Order also laid down specifications as to the average quality of the gram for which the maximum price had been determined. A day earlier, the Central Government had issued on 11-6-1958 a notification under Section 5 of the Act delegating powers under Section 3 of the Act to the respondent Gurbaksh Singh, Deputy Director (Food), Government of India. In pursuance of this authority, the said Deputy Director called upon the petitioners to declare all the stocks of gram held by them whether in their possession or in possession of their agents or pledged with any other person or any bank and also the place or places where such stocks were located. The petitioners submitted the declarations required. Then followed certain orders directing the petitioners to sell out of the stock of" gram held by them large quantities to Government agents and in some of the cases even to other authorised persons. The Legislative authority for these orders as also the orders themselves have been accordingly challenged by the petitioners on various grounds as being void and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the Essential commodities Act under Sections 3 and 5 gives unfettered and uncanalised power to the Central Government for making any order that it thinks fit and even for delegating that power without laying down any principle or criteria for the exercise of such power. It is, therefore, urged that it amounts to an unreasonable restraint on the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on trade and occupation or to hold and dispose of property and it is hit by Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution and is not saved by any of the clauses mentioned therein. It is contended that under Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government is given the right to delegate its power to make orders under Section 8 to any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government, as may be specified in that direction; there is thus no restraint upon the power of delegation and sub-delegation either. It is further contended that in substance, the notification directing the petitioners to sell to Government agents or to other specified individuals amounts to confiscation of property without laying down any principle for payment of compensation and that the price fixed by virtue of the order issued by the Central government is wholly arbitrary and has been fixed without any reference to any known data. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves purchased their stocks of gram for higher prices and are now being compelled to part with them at a much lower price to their detriment. It is also urged that the Central Government had no reason to discriminate in respect of the Ganganagar District and the petitioners who carry on trade in that locality and that any such discrimination was violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) FOR a correct appraisal of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it