Delegated power over essential commodities cannot exceed the limits of the enabling notification and order.

Delegated control over groundnut seeds and groundnut oil remained confined to the limits of the Central Government's notification under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The article explains that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982 regulated licensing, storage, procurement and sale, but did not authorise restrictions on inter-State movement, compulsory supply to the State at fixed prices, or undertakings from traders and millers. A general directions clause could not expand the delegated power beyond the notification or bypass the requirement of prior Central concurrence for the specified restrictions. The challenged executive directions were therefore outside the delegated framework and legally unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's directions restricting transport and export of groundnut seeds and groundnut oil, requiring supply to the State at fixed prices, and insisting on undertakings from millers and traders were within the power delegated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982.

Analysis: The State Government's power under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was derived from delegation by the Central Government and was subject to the conditions in Notification No. GSR 800 dated 9th June 1978. That notification permitted State action in relation to specified matters only with prior concurrence of the Central Government for restrictions concerning distribution outside the State, transport, and certain other clauses. The 1982 Order regulated licensing, storage, procurement and sale, but did not itself authorise restrictions on inter-State movement, compulsory levy, or fixation of prices for supply to the Government. Clause 12 enabled directions only on matters covered by the Order and did not enlarge the delegated power so as to bypass the limits in the notification. An authority exercising delegated power cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.

Conclusion: The impugned directions were outside the scope of the delegated authority, lacked the necessary legal sanction, and were ultra vires and void.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the State Government had no competence to impose the challenged restrictions and levy under the delegated framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegate must act strictly within the limits of the power conferred, and restrictions requiring prior concurrence or not covered by the delegated order cannot be imposed by executive directions or by invoking a general directions clause.

---