The court ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory rights and that monopolizing trade through G.O. No. 2976 was unlawful and unconstitutional.

1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by our learned brother Gopalakrishna Nair, J. whereby he struck down on certiorari G. O. No. 2976, dated 30-12-1964 as bad in law and issued a writ of Mandamus in favour of all the Writ Petitioners directing the respondents, i.e., The District Collector, Hyderabad, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to forbear from acting under the authority or in pursuance of the said G. O. and refrain from interfering with the carrying on of the wholesale business in sugar by the petitioners' firm under their licences.

2. The facts leading to these proceedings may be shortly stated. The petitioners who are 25 in number have been dealing from a long time in sugar along with other articles in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. In or about the year 1963 conditions of scarcity of the commodity in the markets all over made themselves felt. The Government of India, apprehending some serious situation wherein the purchasers and traders may try to push up the prices of sugar thought it expedient to advise the State Governments for taking measures to checkmate the probable activities of wholesale dealers in sugar by issuing Sugar Dealers' Licencing Order on the lines adopted during the period 1959-61. The Government of Andhra Pradesh accepting the proposal promulgated with the prior concurrence of the Central Government the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Licencing Order, 1963, in exercise of its powers conferred by S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act X of 1955). By virtue of this Order no person could carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by the licensing authority, the licensing authority being the District Collector having jurisdiction over the place of business or storage. Procedure in detail was laid down therein for the grant and renewal of the licence. Applications therefor had to be made to the licensing authority in the prescribed form and the licence thereupon had to he issued or renewed also on the prescribed form at the discretion of the licensing authority, which discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily. The licence issued immediately after the advent of the Order was to be valid till the 31st of March, 1963, whereafter it had to he renewed for a period of one year at a time. The terms and conditions of licence could not be contravened except on pain of suspension or cancellation of the licence, besides other action that could be taken under the Act. The grant of licence and renewal thereof could be refused only on grounds reduced to writing after giving opportunity to the party to state his case. The aggrieved party had a right of appeal. Thus, the issue or renewal of the licence was a quasi - judicial Act. The petitioners were granted licence for the year 1963-64. Hardly a few months passed by when the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-rule (2) of R.125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 promulgated an Order called the Sugar Control Order of 1963 under a notification dated 17-4-1963. This order defined a recognised dealer as a person carrying on the business of purchasing, selling or distributing sugar and licensed under the Order relating to the licensing of sugar dealers for the time being in force in a State or Union territory. The petitioners, in. so far as they were licensed under the State Licensing Order, were well within this definition. They were the "recognised dealers". This Order provides further measures : (1) placing restriction on sale, or agreement to sell or deliver by the producers; (2) for controlling the pro