Delegated seizure power cannot rest on mere suspicion where the parent Act requires reason to believe and statutory safeguards remain mandatory.

Clause 5(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965 was found to exceed the delegated power under section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because it authorised seizure on mere suspicion rather than on the statutory standard of reason to believe that a contravention had been, was being, or was about to be committed. The court treated that safeguard as a protection against arbitrary interference with property rights and held that delegated legislation cannot enlarge the parent Act's power or dilute the statutory threshold. The seizure made under the clause was therefore illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether clause 5(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965, which authorised seizure on mere suspicion, was in excess of the power conferred by section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: Section 3(2)(j) permits search and seizure only where the authorised person has reason to believe that a contravention has been, is being, or is about to be committed. The impugned clause substituted that safeguard with a lower standard of mere suspicion. The reasoning treated the statutory requirement of reason to believe as a protection against arbitrary interference with the citizen's right to hold property and held that delegated legislation cannot enlarge the power conferred by the parent Act or dilute the statutory safeguard. The clause was also viewed as conferring arbitrary and excessive power inconsistent with the scheme of strict construction applicable to provisions encroaching on civil liberties.

Conclusion: Clause 5(iii) was held to be in excess of the delegated power under section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the seizure made under it was held illegal.

---