Judgment Honnidh, J.- The main question that arises in this case is, whether clause (l) of rule 50 (1) , of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, made by the Central Government under section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (to be hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), and with it the Notification No. P.L.M. 66, P.N.P. 61, dated 4th August, 1961, issued there under by the State Government (to be hereinafter called ‘the notification’) are ultra vires of section 23 of the Act. 2. The manner in which this question has come up before this Court is this: One K. Mohammad of Bellary was charged, on the information of the Commissioner, Bellary City Municipality, under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act and read with the notification, alleging that he was found selling mutton without a licence, in the Court of the First Additional Munsif- cum- First Class Magistrate, Bellary. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that the provisions under which he had been charged were ultra vires of the Act., The learned Magistrate was of the same view and therefore, referred the matter under section 432, Criminal Procedure Code, for a decision of this Court on the point. 3. The point raised is of considerable importance and since it is likely to arise again, it is as well that this Court should say something for the guidance of the other Courts. 4. Section 23 of the Act, so far as is material for the purpose, is as follows: “23. Power of the Central Government to make rules. 3. The point raised is of considerable importance and since it is likely to arise again, it is as well that this Court should say something for the guidance of the other Courts. 4. Section 23 of the Act, so far as is material for the purpose, is as follows: “23. Power of the Central Government to make rules. — (1) The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules- (f) prohibiting the sale or defining the conditions of sale of any substance which may be injuries to health when used as food or restricting in any manner its use as an ingredient in the manufacture of any article of food or regulating by the issue of licences the manufacture or sale of any article of food; (g) defining the conditions of sale or conditions for licence or sale of any article of food in the interest of public health; (2) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid down as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rules should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no-effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modificaticn or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule”. It is under the latter part of clause (f) of sub- section (1) of section 23 and under clause (g) that rule 50, has been made by the Central Government. It is clear from the section that the choice of the articles of food, the sale of which is to be regulated by the issue of licences, involves the exercise of discretion and judgment and is not a mere formality. It is also clear that the choice of articles must be made by rule. It is clear from the section that the choice of the articles of food, the sale of which is to be regulated by the issue of licences, involves the exercise of discretion and judgment and is not a mere formality. It is also clear that the choice of articles must be made by rule. In exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Committee for food standards, has to make rules, the same having been previously published, as recquired by this section. 5. In rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, it is laid down that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the articles of food except under a licence and clauses (a) to (k) give the list of the articles. To that rule is added clause (l) to the following effect: “(l) any other articles of food (except fruit products covered under the Fruit Products Order, 1955, and vanaspati manufactured, stocked, sold or distributed by factories licensed for the purpose) which the State Government (may) by notification specify”. It is contended that this rule authorising another body like the State Government to choose the articles is ultra vires of section 23 of the Act. As stated earlier, by reading section 23 it is clear that the Parliament has conferred power on the Central Government to choose articles of food, the sale of which requires licence. That has got to be done as specified in that section by the Central Government. The Central Government can do nothing beyond the limits, which circumscribe these powers. Regard must be had not only to what is intended to be done, but how it is attempted. In the present case, there is practically a surrender by the Central Government of its responsibility to another body. That is not what is the pith and substance of the Act. It is quite clear from the language and from the contents of section 23 that there is no power of delegation of the power to choose conferred on the Central Government either expressly or by implication. It is not disputed that the Parliament can delegate the power to the Central Government. It is quite clear from the language and from the contents of section 23 that there is no power of delegation of the power to choose conferred on the Central Government either expressly or by implication. It is not disputed that the Parliament can delegate the power to the Central Government. The choice of the articles of food, the sale of which has to be regulated by issue of licence, has, under the statute, to be decided by the Central Government alone. The Central Government cannot authorise the State Government by making a rule to add to the list quite against the contents of section 23 of the Act. By doing so, the Central Government has acted against the terms of section 23. The view finds support in the Full Bench decision in Rajasekharan Nair v. City Corporation of Trivandrum and another1Rule 50(l), clause (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and the Kerala Government Notification dated 11th January, 1962 issued there under specifying number of articles of food, tea being one of them, which no person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale, except under a licence came to be considered in that case. It was held in that case that rule 50(1), clause (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and the Kerala Government Notification dated 11th January, 1962, issued there under were ultra vires of section 23 of the Act. 6. For the foregoing we hold that clause (l) of rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 made by the Central Government under section 23 of the Act and ‘the notification,‘are ultra vires of section 23 of ‘the Act’. S.V.S. ----- Reference answered accordingly.