BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THESE Writ Appeals have been filed against the order dated 1-4-1985 made by the learned single Judge in Writ petition Nos. 8906 to 8920 and 8923 to 8929 of 1983. The appellants were the petitioners in the said Writ Petitions. ( 2 ) THE material facts in these appeals are as follows: The appellants are all Flour Mill Owners. They purchase wheat and convert it into Flour, Rava and other wheat products in their Roller mills out of the wheat supplied to them by the Food Corporation of India in accordance with the allotment orders of the Deputy Commissioners of various Districts in Karnataka. The price of wheat at which it was being supplied to the appellants from 1-8-1982 was Rs. 185/- per Quintal. The ex mill sale price of wheat products at which they were required to sell wheat products had been fixed. The price of wheat was revised to Rs. 208/- per Quintal with effect from 15-4-1983. In view of this, the price of wheat products were also revised. The price of wheat products at which the appellants were required to sell, before and after revision is as below: from From 15-4-83 1-1-82 maida (per Rs. 261-00 Rs. 287-00 quintal) soji (per quintal) Rs. 261-00 Rs. 292-00 atta (per Rs. 210-00 Rs. 220-00 quintal) bran (per Rs. 120-00 quintal) re is no dispute that immediately before 15-4-1983 the appellants held stock of certain quantities of wheat purchased at the then prevailing rates. There is also no dispute that they sold the wheat products derived out of such wheat, at the revised rates and as a result their margin of profit increased. An Official Memorandum dated 9-8-1982 was issued calling upon the appellants to remit the amount of increased profit to the Government. Relevant part of it reads: "the Roller Mills are hereby directed to credit the differential costs between the old rate and the revised rates to the Chief Accounts Officer, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Bangalore. " thereafter, the appellants filed the Writ petitions challenging the authority of the Director of food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore, to recover the said amount. The learned Judge issued rule nisi and granted an order of interim stay, staying the operation of the impugned circular by which the difference in price was sought to be recovered from the appellants. " thereafter, the appellants filed the Writ petitions challenging the authority of the Director of food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore, to recover the said amount. The learned Judge issued rule nisi and granted an order of interim stay, staying the operation of the impugned circular by which the difference in price was sought to be recovered from the appellants. ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Judge, the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in venkata SUBBA RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AIR1965 SC 1773 , [1965 ]2 SCR577 and of the Patna High Court in BOKARO ROLLER flour MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA, AIR1984 Pat 331 and contended that the Question of Law arising for consideration was covered by the Judgment of the supreme Court. The learned single Judge took the view that these cases were distinguishable from the Judgment of the Supreme Court on the ground that Clause 10 of the Licensing Order expressly provided for issue of direction for remitting the increased amount of profit by the dealer under such circumstances. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants submitted, that the interpretation of Clause 10 by the learned Judge was erroneous and that none of the sub-clauses of Clause 10 conferred any such power. He also submitted that in view of the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court in C. A. Nos. 1444 to 1459 of 1986 dated 29-1-1987 confirming the view taken by the Delhi High Court in delhi FLOUR MILLS v. COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SUPPLIES, AIR 1985 Delhi 312, the contention of the appellants has to be upheld. ( 5 ) CLAUSE 10 of the Licensing Order, 1957 which is relevant for the purpose of determining the questions arising in these appeals reads: "10. Powers of Licensing Authority and specified authority to issue directions to Licensee: (1) The licensing authority or as the case may be, 'the specified authority' may issue directions to licensees in regard to ( a) the source from which and the manner in which wheat shall be obtained for the purpose of manufacture of wheat products. (b) the production or manufacture of different kinds of wheat products and also the size of the packing, the method of packing and the like; (c) the disposal of wheat products. (b) the production or manufacture of different kinds of wheat products and also the size of the packing, the method of packing and the like; (c) the disposal of wheat products. Provided that no direction under item (a) shall be issued by the specified authority without obtaining the prior concurrence of the Central Government. (2) Every licensee shall be bound to carry out the directions of licensing authority or as the case may be, the specified authority under sub-Clause (1 ). " "the licensee shall abide by any direction issued by the licensing authority in regard to the purchase of wheat, extraction of maida, soji and rawa and also in regard to the distribution or disposal of wheat products. " The above clause in the license nodoubt makes it obligatory for the licensees to abide by any direction issued by the Licensing Authority. But the direction issued, in order to be binding, must be one issued with the authority of law. Therefore, the crucial question for consideration is whether Clause 10 on which the respondents rely confer power to issue the impugned direction and whether the respondents had the authority to refix the price after completion of the sale. ( 6 ) A reading of various sub-clauses of Clause 10 would show that there is no power vested in or reserved for the Director or the Government to call upon the licensee to remit the amount of increased profit earned as a result of selling the wheat products, derived out of the wheat purchased and held in stock prior to the revision of the rates of the wheat, at revised rates. Further, since the sale had been completed, the respondents had no authority to re-fix the price. ( 7 ) AT this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Venkata Subbarao's case, AIR1965 SC 1773 , [1965 ]2 SCR577. On a similar question raised regarding the increased profit earned consequent on the revision of price of the paddy, from the Dealers, the Supreme court held that after purchase of paddy the dealers became the owners of paddy and the government cannot claim the excess of profit earned by the dealers on account of revision of selling price. On a similar question raised regarding the increased profit earned consequent on the revision of price of the paddy, from the Dealers, the Supreme court held that after purchase of paddy the dealers became the owners of paddy and the government cannot claim the excess of profit earned by the dealers on account of revision of selling price. In the circumstances similar to the one in the present appeals, the Patna High Court in Bokaro roller Flour Mills case, AIR1984 Pat 331 relying on the principle laid downby the Supreme Court in Venkata Subbarao's case, AIR1965 SC 1773 , [1965 ]2 SCR577 held as below; "the direction to pay the differential amount must flow from the Licensing Order either by express provision or even by implication. No doubt the licensing authorities have power under clause 10 to issue direction from time to time and the licensees are also bound to carry out the direction. A similar provision is also in Form-ll of the licence as contained in Clause V. But these powers cannot be stretched to the extent of asking for extra amount which the petitioners have received due to the enhancement of the price. Moreover the authorities have no authority to redetermine the price when the sale of wheat to licensees has become complete and make such demand. " ( 8 ) THE learned single Judge has referred to the said decision, but expressed disagreement on the ground that Clause 10 of the Licensing Order conferred power to remit the difference in price received by the appellants. As observed by us earlier, Clause 10 does not confer any such power. The power to fix or revise the rates of wheat products cannot be regarded as including the power to recover the increased profit earned consequent on 'revision of sale price of wheat products. However, any further discussion becomes unnecessary, in view of the recent Judgment of the supreme Court confirming the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Flour Mill's case, AIR 1985 Delhi 312. The facts of that case are similar to these cases. However, any further discussion becomes unnecessary, in view of the recent Judgment of the supreme Court confirming the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Flour Mill's case, AIR 1985 Delhi 312. The facts of that case are similar to these cases. The Delhi High Court followed the Judgment of the Patna High Court in Bokaro Roller Flour Mill's case, AIR1984 Pat 331 with which the learned single Judge had disagreed and held as below: "even though there was an increase in the sale price with the result that the Mills could now sell the wheat at a new increased price and would automatically obtain higher benefit, still no such direction could be given. The effort to mop up, by the Government by the impugned orders, of the difference between the old and the new prices had no legal basis. The claim for refund could not be resisted. " ( 9 ) THE above decision of the Delhi High Court, AIR 1985 Delhi 312 was upheld by the Supreme court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1444 to 1459 of 1986 decided on 29-1-1987. While dismissing the appeals of the Union of India, The Supreme Court held as follows: "the appeals are heard on merits. We are of opinion that these appeals have to be dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in A. Venkata Subba Rao v. state of Andhra Pradesh AIR1965 SC 1773 , [1965 ]2 SCR577 since the question raised in these appeals is fully answered against the Government in the said decision. " ( 10 ) THE ratio of the above decision applies on all fours to these cases. ( 11 ) IN the result, we make the following: (1) The Writ Appeals are allowed; (2) In reversal of the order made in the Writ Petitions, the Writ Petitions are allowed; (3) The respondents are directed to forbear from claiming the difference and are also directed to refund forthwith the amounts, if any, already collected from any of the appellants; (4) No order as to costs.