Judgment :- The members of the petitioner-Sangam are selling Kerosene by handcart besides the sale of kerosene through the Public Distribution System to fulfil the needs of the public. Bach handcartman was supplied with 100 litres of kerosene on every working day for selling the same to the consumer at the rate of two litres per family, without insisting on family cards by street vending. 2. The first respondent-State Government, taking into consideration the inadequacy of quantity of kerosene to meet the entire demand of kerosene under Public Distribution System, by G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 accorded prior approval to the second respondent, as contemplated in the proviso to sub-clause (2) under clause 11 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation Order) to reduce the quantum of supply of kerosene to handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas from 100 litres to 50 litres on every working day per handcartman. 3. G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.5.1999, reads as follows: Government of Tamilnadu Abstract Kerosene lifting of kerosene quota allotted by Government of India — Allotment of kerosene to Handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas-Revised orders — Issued. Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department G.O.Ms. No. 101Dated: 4.5.1999 Read: From the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Civil and Consumer Protection Letter No. Rc. K2/2305/99 Dated: 27.1.99. ORDER: At present, with a view to distributing kerosene to the consumers at the rate of 2 litres per family without insisting family cards, each handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas is allotted 100 litres of kerosene per working day. 2. With the introduction of new family card system throughout the State, the cardholders have now been given an option to get additional quota of kerosene at the rate of 5 litres per card per mensem in lieu of rice. In view of this option based Family card system, the total requirement of kerosene for the State has gone upto 82,000 kilo litres per month. Through the Government of India had been addressed to allot a Quantity of 82,000 Kilo litres per month Though the Government of India had been addressed to allot a quantity of 82,000 Kilo litres per month, they have allotted only 77,108 kilo litres of kerosene per month. Through the Government of India had been addressed to allot a Quantity of 82,000 Kilo litres per month Though the Government of India had been addressed to allot a quantity of 82,000 Kilo litres per month, they have allotted only 77,108 kilo litres of kerosene per month. This quantity is therefore inadequate to meet the entire demand of kerosene under Public Distribution System. 3. With a view to maintaining uninterrupted and sufficient supply of kerosene to the cardholders under Public Distribution System, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection has requested the Government to accord prior approval of the Government as provided in the proviso to sub clause (2) under Clause II of Tamilnadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order. 1973 for alteration of quantum of supply of kerosene to handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas from the present level of 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartman, so as to meet the additional requirement of kerosene, though partly for the card/holders under the Public Distribution System. 4. After careful consideration and also taking into consideration the various decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court in the matter of allotment of kerosene to handcartman the Government have decided to accept the above recommendation of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection viz. to reduce the allotment of kerosene to handcartmen in Chennai city and its belt areas from 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartmen. Accordingly under Sub-clause (2) of clause 11 of Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, the Government hereby permit the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection to allot kerosene to handcartmen in Chennai City and its belt areas at the rate of 50 litres per working day as against 100 litres per working day per handcartman. 5. Receipt of this Government Order may be acknowledged immediately. (By Order Of The Governor) M. Ramu Secretary To Government” 4. With the above prior approval of the first respondent, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 5.5.1999 reduced the allotment of kerosene to the handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas, from 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartman, with effect from 6.5.1999. 5. (By Order Of The Governor) M. Ramu Secretary To Government” 4. With the above prior approval of the first respondent, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 5.5.1999 reduced the allotment of kerosene to the handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas, from 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartman, with effect from 6.5.1999. 5. The proceeding of the second respondent dated 5.5.1999 which is impugned in the above writ petition, reads as follows: “Proceedings Of The Special Commissioner And Commissioner Of Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection: Chepauk: Chennai-600 005 Present: Santha Sheela Nair, I.A.S. Proc. No. Rc. K. 2/3205/99 Dated: 5.5.99 Sub: Public Distribution System — Kerosene-Government of India allotment not sufficient to meet the need of Public Distribution System-alteration of quantity allotted to handcartmen for sale ordered. Read: G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Dt. 4.5.99. ORDER: At present, each handcartman in Chennai city and Belt areas is allotted 1OO litres of kerosene per working day for distributing to consumer, in the allotted areas at the rate of 2 litres per family without insisting for family cards. In view of the issue of new cards throughout the state and also the option given to family card holders to get 5 litres of kerosene in lieu of rice, the requirement of kerosene for the state has gone upto 82,000 K.L. per month. Though Government of India was requested to allot 82,000 K.L. per month, they have allotted only 77,108 K.L. per month. The allotment of kerosene by Government of India is therefore inadequate to meet the full demand of kerosene under Public Distribution System. With a view to maintain uninterrupted and sufficient supply of kerosene to the family cardholders under PDS, government was requested to accord prior approval as provided in the proviso to Sub-clause (2) under clause 11 of Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 for alteration of quantum of supply of kerosene to Handcartman in Chennai city and its belt areas from the present level of 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartmar so as to meet the additional requirement of kerosene under the Public Distribution System. Government vide their G.O. cited, have accorded permission to allot kerosene to Handcartman in Chennai city and its Belt areas at the rate of 50 (Fifty only) litres per working day as against 100 litres per working day per handcartman. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in public interest by virtue of the powers vested under clause 11 of Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order 1973. it is hereby directed that the Handcartman in Chennai city and its Belt areas be allotted kerosene for sale at the rate of 50 litres per working day per handcartman with effect from 6.5.99. Assistant Commissioner in Chennai City and Belt areas directed to report compliance. Sd/-Shantha Sheela Nair. Special Commissioner and Commissioner, (CS & DP) 6. Aggrieved by the above proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.5.1999, the petitioner-Sangam has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent dated 5.5.1999 made in Rc. K2/2305/99 and quash the same. 7. Even though the petitioner-sangam has challenged the impugned proceedings dated 5.5.1999, on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice, Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument that the G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.5.1999, and the consequential impugned proceedings cannot be enforced of the said G.O. Ms. No. 101 Cooperation, Food and Consumer in law for want of publication Protection Department dated 4.5.1999, in the Official Gazette, as contemplated under Section 3(5)(a) read with Section 2 (cc) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 8. It is contended that the first respondent has accorded prior approval to the second respondent by G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co operation Food and Consumer Department, dated 4.5.1999, as required in the proviso to clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order. But the said G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 was not notified in the Official Gazette. Therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co operation Food and Consumer Department, dated 4.5.1999, as required in the proviso to clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order. But the said G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 was not notified in the Official Gazette. Therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co operation Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 as well as the consequential impugned proceedings dated 5.5.1999 cannot be enforced for want of notification of the said G.O. dated 4.5.1999 in the Official Gazette as required under Section 3(5)(a) read with Section 2(cc) of the Act inasmuch as the said order affects a class of persons namely the members of the petitioner-Sangam. 9. To substantiate the above contention, Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision in G. Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1975 (35) STC 319, (2) The Licences, Jayaram Touring v. Sudhakar AIR 1995 Madras 357, (3) Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. Etc. 1998 (1) Supreme 189 and (4) M/s. Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Pune AIR 1999 SC 844. 10. Per contra, Mr. D. Murugesan, learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents, invited my attention to clause 11(1) and (2) of the Regulation Order, which reads as follows: 11. Power to Issue Instruction (1) The Government Commissioner, Collector or the licensing authority may issue instructions/directions on all matters covered by the provisions of this Order and all dealers and persons shall comply with them. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (I) such instructions or direction may provide for fixation alteration, amendment or variation of the maximum or minimum limits for purchase, storage and sale of kerosene by a dealer at any time or during any period of time: Provided no such instruction or directions shall be issued by the Commissioner. Collector or licensing authority, without the prior approval of the Govt.”. The learned Government Pleader contends that the second respondent has rightly, after getting prior approval of the first respondent, under G.O.Ms. No. 101, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 reduced the allotment of kerosene from 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartman, by exercising his powers conferred under clause 11(1) and (2) of the Regulation Order. 12. Mr. No. 101, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 reduced the allotment of kerosene from 100 litres to 50 litres per working day per handcartman, by exercising his powers conferred under clause 11(1) and (2) of the Regulation Order. 12. Mr. D. Murugesan, learned Government Pleader further contends that only notifications that are expressly required to be published under the Regulation Order are alone required to be notified in the Official Gazette but not instructions or directions referred to in clause 11(1) & (2) of the Regulation Order. Therefore, he contends that it is not mandatory for the first respondent to publish G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999, in the Official Gazette, as claimed by the petitioner-sangam. 13. I have bestowed my consideration to the submissions of both sides. 14. The Essential Commodities Act is intended to provide for the control of production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities essential for human being, in the interests of general public. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to pass appropriate orders for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in essential commodities. Accordingly, Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, is one such regulative order made for maintaining supplies of kerosene and for securing its equitable distribution and availability of fair prices in the state of Tamil Nadu. It is not in dispute that the said Order was notified and published in the Official Gazette as required under Section 3(5) (a) of the Act, which reads as follows: “Section 3(5): (5) An order made under this section, shall,- (a) in the case of an order of a general nature or affecting a class of persons, be notified in the official gazette: 15. No doubt, Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel places reliance on the decisions of this court as well as the Apex court and contends that since the Order includes a direction issued thereunder, as per Section 2(cc), the G.O.Ms. No. 101, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 also be notified in the Official Gazettee as required under Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, as the said GO. dated 4.5.99 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.5.1999 are issued under Clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order, the said G.O. Ms. No. 101, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 also be notified in the Official Gazettee as required under Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, as the said GO. dated 4.5.99 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.5.1999 are issued under Clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order, the said G.O. Ms. No. 101 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 and the consequential impugned proceedings dated 5.5.1999 are affecting the rights of the petitioner. 16. Of course, in G. Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1975 (35) STC 319, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a notification amending the schedule regarding rate of tax shall come into force only from the date of publication of the gazette. Placing reliance on the above ratio, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that since G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Department dated 4.5.1999 was not published in the Official Gazette, as admitted by the respondents themselves, the same cannot be enforced against the petitioner, by the impugned proceeding dated 5.5.1999. 17. Referring to a decision in The Licensee, Jayaram Touring v. Sudhakar reported in AIR 1995 Madras 357, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the notification of an amended rule which was not published in the official gazette, shall not have the effect of rule framed under the Act and therefore, in the instant case, since the G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4..5.1999 was also, admittedly, not published in the Official Gazette, it cannot be construed as a direction under clause 11(1) and (2) of the regulation order and hence, the same cannot be enforced. 18. Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers to the decision in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. Etc. Etc. reported in 1998 (1) Supreme 189 , as followed in M/s. Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Pune reported in AIR 1999 SC 844, wherein the Apex Court has held that Central Excise notification could be said to have been published only if it is known to the public and contends that in the instant case, since G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 was not made known to the public, the same cannot be enforced for want of proper publication, in the eye of law, as the mere printing of the same is not sufficient. 19. In my considered opinion, the proposition laid down in the above decisions are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Narayana Reddys case , the Act requires the publication of the notification amending the schedule regarding the rate of tax. Similarly, in Jayaram Toukrings case, a rule was sought to be amended, which required to be published in the official gazette. Even in the Collector of Central Excise case and Garware Nylonss case, notifications are required to be published in the gazette as a mandatory obligation. But, in the instant case, the requirement of law, with regard to the publication of notification in the official gazette, is not the same as in the case referred to above. 20. I am obliged to refer Section 2(c) and 2(cc) of the Act, which reads as follows: Section 2(c) “notified order” means an order notified in the official Gazette; Section 2(cc): “order” includes a direction issued thereunder. 21. A plain reading of Section 2(c) and 2(cc) of the Act makes it clear that the Act itself provides for ‘a notified Order’ and ‘an Order’. All the notified Orders under Section 2(c) of the Act shall have the effect of an Order under Section 2(cc) of the Act. But, all the Orders within the meaning of Section 2 (cc) of the Act, need not be notified Orders within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Thus, Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, has rightly been published in the Official Gazette, as required to be published under Section 3(5) of the Act. On the other hand, the G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 is an Instruction or direction, purported to be issued under the proviso to Clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order and therefore, comes within the meaning of Section 2(cc) of the Act, but not a notified Order under Section 3(5) (a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 is an Instruction or direction, purported to be issued under the proviso to Clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order and therefore, comes within the meaning of Section 2(cc) of the Act, but not a notified Order under Section 3(5) (a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. Further, an order referred to under Subsection 5 to Section 3 of the Act, is only an order which is intended, notified and published in the Official Gazette, for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act, such as Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, but it will not include the Instruction or direction or any order issued in pursuance of the Regulation Order. It is for this reason, the Act itself has defined two types of orders, namely, notified Order as defined within the meaning of Section 2(c) and an order within the meaning of Section 2 (cc) of the Act. 22. It is not in dispute that the proviso to clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order requires the second respondent to get prior approval from the first respondent, before issuing any instruction or direction under clause 11(2) of the Order. A reading of clause 11(1) and (2) of the Order, referred to above, makes it clear that clause 11(1) has to be read into clause 11(2). As per clause 11(1) of the Regulation Order, the Government Commissioner, Collector or the licensing authority is empowered to issue instructions, direction on all matters covered by the provisions of the Order and that all dealers and persons shall comply with them. Clause 11(2) of the Order further requires, in the case of fixation or alteration or amendment or variation of the maximum or minimum limits of purchase, storage and sale of kerosene, by a dealer at any time or during any period of time. The Commissioner or Collector or the licensing authority should get prior approval of the Government. Neither clause 11(1) nor clause 11(2) of the Regulation Order requires the publication of such prior approval in the Official Gazette. In the absence of any such mandatory requirements under the statute, either under the Act or under the Regulation Order, I do not think it is necessary for the Government to publish G.O.Ms. No. 101, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 in the official gazette. In the absence of any such mandatory requirements under the statute, either under the Act or under the Regulation Order, I do not think it is necessary for the Government to publish G.O.Ms. No. 101, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 in the official gazette. Because, while issuing such instructions or direction under clause 11(1) and 2 of the Regulation Order, the Government Commissioner or Collector or the Licensing Authority have to take into consideration the availability of stock and supply and also the demand of kerosene by the general public, at a particular time or during any period of time. Therefore, it is a power given to the authorities mentioned under Clause 11(1) and (2) to take appropriate decision, as per the requirement of the existing situation at any time or during any period of time. To expect such instructions and directions to be published in the Official Gazette, before giving effect to the same, would defeat, the very object of the Act and the Regulation order, referred to above. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contentions of Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that G.O.Ms. No. 101, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.5.1999 as well as the consequential impugned proceedings dated 5.5.1999, cannot be enforced against the petitioners, merely for want of publication of the said G.O. in the Official Gazette. The only contention raised by the learned senior counsel in challenging the impugned proceedings fails and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 23. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner-Sangam has already made an appeal to the first respondent against the impugned proceedings dated 5.5.1999. Since I have not gone into the merits of the case, 1 direct the first respondent to hear the petitioner-Sangam and pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner; on merits, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. Writ petition is dismissed with the above direction. WMP No. 12047 of 1999 is dismissed. No costs.