https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196428 Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act were treated as valid subordinate legislation made under statutory authority and not as mere executive instructions. The challenge based on Article 303 failed because there was no proper material showing prohibited State preference or discrimination, and the restrictions were directed to regulation of rice export and movement in the public interest. The absence of an express recital of the Central Government's opinion under Section 3(1), and the absence of a formal appeal or revision against refusal of permits, did not render the orders invalid or unreasonable. Section 3(2)(d) was also upheld, with the delegation framework sustained by existing authority and sufficient statutory policy and guidance. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:20:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196428 Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act were treated as valid subordinate legislation made under statutory authority and not as mere executive instructions. The challenge based on Article 303 failed because there was no proper material showing prohibited State preference or discrimination, and the restrictions were directed to regulation of rice export and movement in the public interest. The absence of an express recital of the Central Government's opinion under Section 3(1), and the absence of a formal appeal or revision against refusal of permits, did not render the orders invalid or unreasonable. Section 3(2)(d) was also upheld, with the delegation framework sustained by existing authority and sufficient statutory policy and guidance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196428