Judgment :- 1. W.P. No. 11081 of 2000 has been filed by one V. Rajangam, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the Eighteen thousand coconuts which were seized from the lorry bearing Registration No. TAB 3933 by the second respondent on 19.6.2000 to the petitioner. 2. W.P. No. 11898 of 2000 has been filed by one T. Matheswaran, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/District Collector to release 123 bags of “coconut copra” seized by the second respondent on 8.7.2000 from the Mini Van bearing Registration No. TN-55-A7374 to the petitioner. 3. W.P. No. 10542 of 2000 has been filed by one S.K. Chellamuthu, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/District Collector to release the seized lorry bearing Registration No. TAB-3933 seized on 19.6.2000, by the second respondent, to the petitioner. 4. W.P. No. 11767 of 2000 has been filed by one N. Sundraraj, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent/District Collector to release the seized Van bearing Registration No. TN-55-A-7374 seized on 8.7.2000 by the second respondent to the petitioner. 5. The Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-55-A-7474 (subject matter in W.P. No. 11767/2000) had been seized by the second respondent for alleged illicit transportation of 123 bags of copra, while the vehicle bearing Registration No. TAB-3933 (Subject matter in W.P. No. 11081/2000) had been seized for the alleged illicit transportation of coconuts. 6. As the points raised in both the writ petitions are interconnected, with the consent of counsel for either side, all the four writ petitions were consolidated and were taken up for hearing. 7. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions and Mr. Patti B. Jagannathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions. I-Petitioners Case 8. 7. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions and Mr. Patti B. Jagannathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions. I-Petitioners Case 8. The petitioner in W.P.No:11081 of 2000 claims that he is an agriculturist and he had entered into a lease with one O.V. Shanmughavel of Avaniyapuram with respect to 16 acres of land along with 800 yielding coconut trees, that he would usually harvest the coconuts and sell the same in Kangeyam Market, that on 19.6.2000, he collected the 18,000 coconuts from the said leasehold land, engaged a lorry for transportation of the coconuts from Perungudi to Kangeyam, that the second respondent seized the consignment along with the lorry at Kangeyam on the ground that there is restriction in movement of coconuts, that according to the petitioner, coconut is not an essential commodity as it does not fall under the Scheduled Commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, that no seizure Mahazar was prepared or signed or furnished, that the seizure of the coconuts with lorry is illegal, that the seizure of coconuts is without authority, jurisdiction and contrary to law, that he had moved the respondents for release of the coconuts as they are perishable and that as no orders have been passed, he has approached this court seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus, while W.P.No:10542 of 2000 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TAB-3933, raising the same contentions. 9. 9. In W.P.No:11898 of 2000, the petitioner claims that he is a Commission Agent of Copra, that he used to purchase Coconut Copra and sell it to at Market Committee and also to the licensed traders of Oil Mills, that on 7.7.2000, he had purchased 123 bags of coconut copra from agriculturists of Ponnamaravathi, that the copra was transported in a mini van to the Market Committee at Vellakoil, that on its way, at Kangeyam, the second respondent had seized the copra along with the van for alleged violation of Tamil Nadu Essential Trades Articles (Regulation Trade Order), 1984, that the action of the respondents is illegal, without authority and jurisdiction, that the Trade Order relied upon will have no application with respect to transportation of copra or coconuts and that the very seizure is without jurisdiction and therefore the present writ petition, while the Writ Petition No. 11767 of 2000 has been filed by the owner of the mini van bearing Registration No: TN-55-A-7374, which was engaged for transportation of coconut copra by the petitioner in W.P.No: 11898 of 2000. II-Respondents Case 10. In W.P.No: 11081/2000, on behalf of the respondents, the second respondent has filed a counter. II-Respondents Case 10. In W.P.No: 11081/2000, on behalf of the respondents, the second respondent has filed a counter. According to the counter, the second respondent along with the Inspector of Police and Tahsildar Flying Squad were conducting check of vehicles at 10.30 P.M. on 19.6.2000 on Thirupur Road off Kangeyam, that the vehicle TAB.3933 had been stopped and checked, that the said vehicle carried 12,000 numbers of coconuts fit for copra was found loaded on the said lorry, that the consignment was not covered by any valid purchase bill or any other indication of the licence number etc., of the Dealer who has purchased and moved the said coconut fit for copra and the destination also not made out, that since the coconut is edible oil seed coming under the purview of Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and as per C1.4(1) of Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, no dealer shall carry on business under Essential Trade Article mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Order without holding a licence issued in this behalf, the purchase and movement of coconut fit for copra for extraction of edible oil is being in violation of Tamilnadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 the same were seized under the cover of proper Mahazar, that at the time of seizure, the Driver did not inform that the consignment belong to Agriculturist and that no records or evidence were made available at the time of seizure to verify or check the claims. 11. According to the respondents, the stocks were moved by a person not holding a licence to deal in Edible Oil seeds under Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 and with a view to circumvent the statutory provisions, it has been claimed that it belongs to agriculturists. According to the respondents, the seizure was effected under the cover of proper Mahazar. The seizure is not illegal as there is a violation of Tamilnadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1 984. However, the second respondent in the counter has stated thus: — “It is further submitted that even though the Edible Oil and Oil seeds have been exempted from the purview of storage control order of Government of India, the Government of India have allowed the State Governments to regulate purchase/storage etc., according to the need of the State. However, the second respondent in the counter has stated thus: — “It is further submitted that even though the Edible Oil and Oil seeds have been exempted from the purview of storage control order of Government of India, the Government of India have allowed the State Governments to regulate purchase/storage etc., according to the need of the State. Hence the edible oil and oil seeds continue to remain in Schedule 1 of Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (ROT) Order 1984, and hence, purchase/storage of Essential Commodities attracts the provisions of the said Order.” 12. According to the respondents no representations have been made either for release or claiming ownership. It is the further case of the respondents that coconuts fit for copra were seized for the reason that there was no purchase bill and details of the dealer and the licence number etc., of the dealer who made the purchase was also not available at the time of check and being a violation of Tamil Nadu Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 and by virtue of power conferred under Clause 27 of the said Order, the said commodity was seized along with the vehicle and report has been filed under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Notice under Section 6 B calling for enquiry was issued to the Driver Subramanian, but it could not be served as the address furnished by him is found to be incorrect. The writ petition is premature and not maintainable as already action has been taken under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 13. In Writ Petition No: 11898 of 2000, identical counter has been filed. According to the respondents, the Taluk Supply Officer stopped a Mini Lorry bearing No. TN-55A-7474 transporting 123 bags of copra belonging to one Matheswaran. However, it is stated that trip sheet contained entries to the effect that 123 bags of house-hold articles and Bengal gram dhall are loaded and transported. The owner Matheswaran who was also present was not able to produce any proof of his having valid licence under Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and purchase bill for quantity being moved. The owner Matheswaran who was also present was not able to produce any proof of his having valid licence under Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and purchase bill for quantity being moved. According to the respondents, the commodity copra is an essential article and a dealer has to secure a licence and any transportation or dealing without a licence is in violation of Clause 4(i) of the Order and the stock is liable for seizure under the power vested in CL:27 of the said Order. 14. According to the respondents, the petitioner is the Commission Agent in coconut copra and he is a dealer as defined in the Order and he had failed to take a licence with respect to coconut copra and Edible Oil seeds as per clause 2(n) of the Order and this being a contravention, the respondents are well within their power and authority in seizing the consignment in terms of Clause 27(1) of the said Order. It has been further stated that the stock of copra was not seized because of any movement/restriction order, but for the reasons that, the person who is admittedly a Commission Agent being a dealer who is carrying on business without possession of a valid licence and as such he has contravened the provisions of the said Order and consequently Copra is liable for seizure. 15. It is further stated that the Edible Oil and Oil seeds have been taken out of storage control order of Government of India, the Government of India had clarified that the States are free to regulate purchase and storage of edible oilseeds according to the need of the State. Hence, the edible oil and oil seeds continue to be regulated by Tamilnadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984. According to the respondents, the seizure is perfectly valid and the seizure is neither illegal, nor without authority. According to the respondents an order has already been passed for release of the commodity on the petitioner depositing the value of the stock, fixed at Rs. 1,08,000/-and the stock was ordered to be released on the deposit of the said amount. It is further contended that already action has been taken by the first respondent, a competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Act, and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature. 16. 1,08,000/-and the stock was ordered to be released on the deposit of the said amount. It is further contended that already action has been taken by the first respondent, a competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Act, and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature. 16. According to the respondents, the stock has been seized as dealing in copra, edible oil seeks without holding a valid licence under Tamilnadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 is illegal and the failure to take a licence gives cause of action for the respondents to seize the stock with the lorry. No separate counter affidavit has been filed in the other two Writ Petitions filed by the owners of the vehicle, but the same stand has been taken by the respondents. 17. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the respondents have authority to seize coconuts and proceed further for alleged violation of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984? (ii) Whether the respondents have authority to seize copra and proceed further for alleged violation of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984? (iii) Whether the Coconuts and Copra are essential commodities as defined in Sec. 2(a) of the Essential Commodities Act? and an essential article under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984? (iv) Whether any action could be taken by the respondents with respect to coconuts and copra for the alleged violation of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984, read with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? (v) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled? 18. Before taking up the above points for consideration it is essential to refer to the statutory provisions. The statutory provisions relied upon by the respondents to seize the coconuts and copra are (i) The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and (ii) The Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984. 19. The Essential Commodities Act was enacted in the year 1955 in the interest of the general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce. 19. The Essential Commodities Act was enacted in the year 1955 in the interest of the general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce. In Diwan Sugar and General Mills v. Union of India reported in 1959 S.C., 626, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the prime object of the Legislation was to secure availability of essential commodities to the general public at fair prices and to protect their interest by way of equitable distribution. The expression “essential commodity” has been defined in Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act which means any of the commodities mentioned therein. It extends to such varied items such as foodstuffs, cattle fodder, cotton and woollen textiles, r aw cotton, cotton seed, paper, petroleum and petroleum products, spare parts of mechanically propelled vehicles, coal, iron and steel, mica and any other clause of commodity notified by the appropriate Government. 20. Section 3 of the Act is the main provision directed to secure equitable distribution of the essential commodities and its availability at fair prices. To achieve this object, its various sub-sections confer power on the Government to issue orders regulating or even prohibiting production, supply and distribution of such stocks. Clause (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act confers power on the Government to make any provision for any incidental or supplementary matters, including any entry, search or examination of such premises to make seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination. The said power of search and seizure in respect of Articles have been made subject to reasonable belief that a contravention of the Order has been, is being, or is about to be committed. The power conferred by this sub-section is very wide as it empowers the person authorised to seize even if any contravention is about to be committed. 21. Section 5 of the Act provides for delegation of powers by Central Government, the power to make orders or issue notification under Section 3 of the Act and what is required is a notification by the Central Government to be made. Section 6A provides for confiscation of food grains, edible oil seeds and edible oils. Section 6B provides for issue of show-cause notice before confiscation. Section 6C provides for an appeal. Section 7 provides for imposition of penalties. Section 6A provides for confiscation of food grains, edible oil seeds and edible oils. Section 6B provides for issue of show-cause notice before confiscation. Section 6C provides for an appeal. Section 7 provides for imposition of penalties. Section 13 provides that the Court shall presume that an order has been made by a competent authority when such an order purports to have been made and signed by an authority in exercise of any power conferred or under the Essential Commodities Act. 22. The Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 has been made by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the prior concurrence of Government of India in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Food, G.S.R. No. 452(E) dated 25th October, 1972 and G.S.R. No. 168(E), dated 13th March 1973 as well as S. 0.691 (E) and 682 (E) dated 30th November, 1974, besides Order No. G.S.R. No . 800, dated 17th June 1978. The relevant portion of the notification issued in this respect reads thus: — Notification “Whereas the State Government are of opinion that for maintaining the supplies of paddy and rice, wheat and wheat products, pulses, edible oils, edible oil seeds, chillies (Dry) Jaggery, Tamarind and any other essential commodities that may be notified by the State Government and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it is necessary and expedient to provide for the regulation of trade in the above said essential commodities.”. 23. It is essential to refer to the definition clause in the Order. Clause (2)(m) defines the expression “edible oil”. The definition reads thus: — “2.(m) ‘edible oil’ means groundnut oil, gingelly oil, coconut oil, soya been oil, rape seed oil, sunflower oil, palmolein oil, cotton seed oil, saffola oil, any refined edible oil including hydrogenated vegetable oil and includes edible raw or refined oil imported under a valid licence issued by the Government of India.” This definition includes coconut oil. Clause (n) defines the expression “edible oil seed”. This definition reads thus: — “2.(n) ‘edible oil seed’ means groundnut kernel, gingelly seed, copra, soya bean seed, rape seed, sun flower seed and includes groundnut in shell and edible oil seeks imported under a valid licence issued by the Government of India.” 24. Clause (n) defines the expression “edible oil seed”. This definition reads thus: — “2.(n) ‘edible oil seed’ means groundnut kernel, gingelly seed, copra, soya bean seed, rape seed, sun flower seed and includes groundnut in shell and edible oil seeks imported under a valid licence issued by the Government of India.” 24. The expression ‘Essential trade Articles’ has been defined in clause 2.(o). Schedule-1 and Schedule-11 of the Order read thus: — Schedule-I 1. Paddy and Rice 2. Wheat and Wheat Products 3. Pulses 4. Edible Oil and Edible Oil seeds 5. Chillies (Dry) Schediile-II 1. Tea (all kinds) 2. Coffee seeds and coffee powder (all kinds) 3. Tyre and Tubes (Cycle, Rickshaw, Car, Bus, Jeep, Truck, Tractor, Trolley, art Pulled by animal and other vehicles) 4. Saps (Washing & Toilet) 5. Detergent Powders 6. Match Box 7. Cells of torches and transistors 8. Exercise Books 9. Soda ash 10. Paper (all varieties) 11. Baby Food 12. Jaggery 13. Tamarind 25. The expression ‘copra’ appearing in Section 2(n) had not been defined, while in respect of the expression ‘edible oil seed’, the said definition clause includes groundnut in shell. But there is no such inclusive definition with respect to coconut or copra in shell. In the absence of any definition, it is essential to ascertain the dictionary or ordinary meaning of expression copra’ and ‘coconut’. 26. Before proceeding further, it is also essential to refer to the definition and the expression ‘essential commodity’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The material portion of the definition could be usefully extracted as hereunder: — Sec. 2(a) ‘essential commodity’ means any of the following classes of commodities, — (i) foodstuffs, (ia) cattle fodder, (ii) cotton and woollen textiles, (iia) raw cotton, (iib) cotton seed, (iii) paper, (iv) petroleum and petroleum products, (v) spare parts of mechanically propelled vehicles, (vi) Coal, (vii) iron and steel, (viii) mica The expression ‘food-crops’ has been defined as ‘food-crops’ including crops of sugarcane. 27. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘coconut’ as found in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Ninth Edition) reads as hereunder: — Coconut (a) the large ovate brown seed of a tall tropical palm, cocos nucifera, with a fibrous husk around a hard shell lined with edible white flesh enclosing a white liquid, (b) (in full coconut palm or tree) the palm itself, (c) the flesh of a coconut. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘copra’ as set out in the said Dictionary reads thus: — Copra. the dried kernels of the coconut. 28. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, the meaning of word ‘copra’ is set out thus: — “Copra Dried sections of the oil-bearing kernel of the fruit (nut) of the coconut palm (cocos nucifera) are known in world commerce as copra. The less common drying of the intact whole nut kernel produces ball, edible or whole copra. Shredding of the fresh meat, followed by through drying, results in a food item, desiccated coconut, in which the moisture content is somewhat lower and the oil content higher than that of copra. Copra, as known in trade, is seldom used directly as human food, but is processed to extract the coconut oil of commerce, leaving a coconut oil cake, also called copra cake, poonac and boengkil, mostly utilised for livestock feed. Nuts ripen throughout the year after they are about one year of age; they may be gathered as they fall, regardless of weather, in which case they must be processed promptly to obtain quality copra. The nuts also may be picked from the trees, in which case the greener nuts are seasoned for as much as four weeks in shallow piles. Eventually the nuts are husked by bringing them forcibly against a sharp point. This is in most areas hand work, though mechanical huskers are known. The shell is then cracked, normally into two halves, with a chopping knife, exposing the meat, which is about 28% by weight of the total nut and in its raw state is about 5% water 3% and to 4% oil. It requires about 30 nuts to provide meat for 10 lbs. of copra.” 29. The expression ‘edible’ means suitable to be eaten as given in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Therefore in common parlance ‘coconut’ has a distinct meaning. So also ‘copra’. It may be that coconut after breaking the matured coconut yields copra. The common user of the coconuts being the kernels and the drink obtained from the green nuts, the husk yields coir, a fibre highly resistant to salt water and used in the manufacture of ropes, mats, baskets, brushes, and brooms. Coconut oil has many use s, entering into the manufacture of soaps, detergents, shampoos, synthetic rubber, glycerine, hydraulic brake fluid and plasticizers for safety glass. Coconut oil has many use s, entering into the manufacture of soaps, detergents, shampoos, synthetic rubber, glycerine, hydraulic brake fluid and plasticizers for safety glass. Copra meal is a livestock and fertilizer. Shredded coconut is a familiar item on grocers shelves. 30. As seen from the dictionary meaning and as expressed in common parlance, the word ‘copra’ as appearing in the definition clauses ‘edible oil seed’ will not include a coconut either matured or green. Till the husk is removed, the coconut is broken and resultant kernel is extracted, it is coconut and the resultant extraction from the matured coconut is the copra. The said copra finds user as a food item or for the extraction of oil and it is an edible oil seed. There is no doubt that copra (coconut copra ) is an edible oil seed as seen from the definition clause 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984. 31. At the risk of repetition, it has to be mentioned that copra will not include a coconut. A coconut is a fruit of the coconut palm (cocos nucifera), tree of the palm family, an important crop of the tropics. The harvested coconut yields copra. The dried, extracted kernel or meat from which coconut oil, the worlds ranking vegetable oil, is extracted. As such it is clear that the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 will not cover coconuts, but it will cover only copra. In other words, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 will have no application to coconuts either green or matured or dried coconuts so long as they remain in ovoid or ellipsoid in shape. Hence, it is clear that no action could be taken under Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 read with The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 32. Even assuming that such ovoid or ellipsoid shape coconuts could also be used for extraction of kernel, so long as the coconuts are in full shape with husk, the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to proceed against the coconuts as copra is yet to be extracted from it. 32. Even assuming that such ovoid or ellipsoid shape coconuts could also be used for extraction of kernel, so long as the coconuts are in full shape with husk, the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to proceed against the coconuts as copra is yet to be extracted from it. Once copra is extracted, it becomes an oil seed as defined in the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 and till it is extracted, it is a coconut or it is a core of the coconut. 33. While considering the scope and purport of expression ‘Essential Commodities’ the Apex Court in Hindustan Feed Manufacturers v. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 273 held thus: — “The expression ‘essential commodity’ has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act wherein the commodities have been mentioned in generic sense. Even the general expressions like ‘foodstuffs’ and ‘cattle fodder’ have been given inclusive-definitions. The purpose sought to be achieved by the definition is to bring all essential commodities within the purview of the Act. Various classes of commodities enumerated in Section (a) of the Act cannot, therefore, be confined in watertight compartments. They overlap and one class may be inclusive of another. In any case, the notification dated 9.6.1978 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Act relates to “foodstuffs” in general. The said notification did not specifically mention any of the clauses (i) to (v) under Section 2(a) of the Act. Since expression “foodstuffs” covers more than one clause under Section 2(a) there is no justification in restricting the same only to one clause.” 34. An interesting question arose in State of U.P. and others v. Janta In. Udyog and others etc., reported in AIR 1991, S.C. 477, as to whether brick is or not specified as essential commodity and as to whether the State Government could impose licence on manufacturers of bricks. In that context it has been held thus: — “The State Government has power under S. 3 read with S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to make notified orders in respect of the essential commodities as referred to in S. 2 of the Act. But S. 2(a)(xi) of the Essential Commodities Act does not specify ‘brick’ as one of the essential commodities. But S. 2(a)(xi) of the Essential Commodities Act does not specify ‘brick’ as one of the essential commodities. Therefore, the High Court is justified in holding that the State Government cannot impose licence on the manufacturers of bricks for the purpose of using coal for firing bricks.” 35. Hence it is clear that unless a particular commodity falls within one or more of the provisions Essential Commodities Act and in particular, falling within the essential commodity, no Order could be promulgated by a State, nor the State Government could impose licence or restriction on the manufacturing process of such commodity. 36. As has been held by the Apex Court in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 205 , the prime object of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is to secure availability of essential commodities, and essential commodity under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act means all the commodities mentioned therein. Section 3 is the main provision directed towards securing equitable distribution of the essential commodity and its availability at fair prices. To achieve this object, its various sub-sections confer power on the Government to issue orders regulating or even prohibiting production, supply and distribution of such goods. 37. In District Collector, Chittoor and others v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, Chittoor and others, reported in 1989 (2) SCC 58 , Oil Millers and Traders who carry on business in the sale and purchase of groundnut seed and groundnut seed oil which is edible challenged the circular order dated 21st June, 1985 containing directions regulating the transport and export of groundnut seeds and oil outside the State. The oil millers and traders w permitted to export oil and groundnut see only on the condition contained in the Order according to which all millers and traders were required to deliver oil to t he State Government at a fixed price in proportion of one tonne of oil for every three tonnes to be transported outside the State and similarly a trader was required to supply to the State Government one tonne of oil for every five tonnes of groundnut seeds proposed to be transported outside’ the State at the price fixed by the State Government. 38. In substance, the State Government imposed compulsory levy on oil millers and traders on the transport and export of groundnut oil and seeds. 38. In substance, the State Government imposed compulsory levy on oil millers and traders on the transport and export of groundnut oil and seeds. The millers and traders challenged the validity of the Order of the State Government by moving the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of the State Government finding that the directions contained therein violate Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Government Order is violative of Section 3(2)(f), Section 3(3-B) and Section 3(5) of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as the directions contained in the Order amounted to imposition of levy which could not be done without obtaining prior concurrence of the Central Government in terms of Section 3(2)(f) of the Act. The Division Bench also held that the directions contained in the impugned Government Order are outside the power of the State Government under Clause 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. 39. Challenging the said decision of the Division Bench, the District Collector, Chittoor preferred Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the State of Andhra Pradesh has got the authority to issue the directions. The Apex Court pointed out that it is the Central Government which has the legal sanction to issue orders for securing the objectives which may include control of prices, regulation of production and manufacture of any essential commodity, regulation, movement, transport, sale and distribution of essential commodities and other allied matters. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Central Government to delegate its powers under Section 3 for issuing orders or notification as may be specified in the orders in relation to such matters and subject to such condition as it may specify in the order. 40. It has been further held that it is the Central Government which is competent to delegate the powers to the State Government. The order, if any, issued under Section 3 of the Act is legislative in nature which is required to be notified in the Official Gazette under Section 3(5) of the Act. 40. It has been further held that it is the Central Government which is competent to delegate the powers to the State Government. The order, if any, issued under Section 3 of the Act is legislative in nature which is required to be notified in the Official Gazette under Section 3(5) of the Act. The Central Government had issued a notification in G.S.R. No. 800, dated 9th June, 1978 delegating its powers under Section 3(1) of the Act to the State Government to make orders in respect of the matters specified in the various sub-clauses or sub-section (2) of Section 3 in relation to foodstuffs, subject to certain conditions specified therein. After extracting the said notification G.S.R.800, dated 9th June, 1978, the Apex Court held that the said notification is manifestly clear that the Central Government did not delegate to the State Government its general power to pass any order under Section 3(1) of the Act. On the other hand, the State Government was delegated limited power to make Orders in relation to foodstuffs subject to certain conditions specified in the notification after obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government. Any order made by the State Government regulating matters specified in clause (2) of notification without obtaining the prior sanction of the Central Government, it was held, is in contravention of the delegated power. 41. While referring to edible oil seeds and edible oil, which was the subject matter of challenge, which is also identical to the present challenge, their Lordship of the Supreme Court held thus: — “6. The policy decision taken by the State Government and enforced under the aforesaid circular letter placed restriction on the transport and movement of edible oil and oil seeds and it further imposed compulsory levy requiring the millers and traders to supply oil to the State Government at the price fixed by it. There is no doubt that these steps were taken bona fide to ensure availability of the edible oil and oil seeds for public distribution at fair price but the steps taken by the State Government were not permissible in law as the 1982 Order did not confer power on the government to place such restrictions. Section 3(2)(d) provides for regulating by licence, permits or otherwise the storage transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of any essential commodity. Section 3(2)(d) provides for regulating by licence, permits or otherwise the storage transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of any essential commodity. Clause (f) of Section 3(2) of the Act confers power for making an order requiring any person holding in stock or engaged in the production or in the business of buying or selling of any essential commodity to sell the whole or specified part of quantity held in or produced or received by him to the government or to an officer or agent of the government. Clause (d) among other things provides for regulating transport and movement of an essential commodity while clause (f) confers power to impose compulsory levy on a person holding the essential commodity in stock by selling the same to the Government. Section 3(3) provides that a person selling any essential commodity to the government in compliance with the order made with reference to clause (f) of sub-section (2) shall be paid controlled price if any fixed by the government or agreed between the parties and in the absence of agreement the price payable would be at the market rate prevailing in the locality on the date of sale. The 1982 Order which was framed by the State Government in exercise of the delegated powers does not contain any provision placing any restriction on the transport or movement of the edible oil or oil seeds nor it provides for imposition of compulsory levy, further it does not fix any price. The directions issued by the government placing restriction on the movement of oil seeds and oil and imposing compulsory levy and requiring millers and traders to sell oil seeds and oil at a price fixed by it, are outside the purview of the 1982 Order.” 42. The Apex Court further held thus: — “The State Government while issuing or making orders in respect of the essential commodities under Section 3 of the Act could make provision to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in the notification dated June 9, 1978, it had no power to make any order in respect of matters for which it had not been authorised to exercise powers under Section 3 of the Act. The State Government clearly transgressed the legislative authority in issuing the directions as contained in its circular letters dated December 6, 1983 and June 21, 1985. The State Government clearly transgressed the legislative authority in issuing the directions as contained in its circular letters dated December 6, 1983 and June 21, 1985. In fact an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Central Government stating that no concurrence of the Central Government had been obtained and the State Government had no competence to exercise power in respect of matters specified in clauses (d) and (f) of Section 3(2) of the Act. The purpose and object for obtaining prior concurrence is to ensure availability of essential commodity throughout the country. The State Government s are not authorised to impose restrictions on the movement of the essential commodities as it would have reflection in other States both in regard to the price and in regard to the availability of the commodity for distribution. The Central Government has the responsibility of maintaining a balance between the interest of the various States and it has to ensure the availability of essential commodities for distribution at a fair price in other States also.” 43. It is to be pointed out that even the Trade Order which is heavily relied upon by the respondents has been issued by virtue of the very same notification viz., G.S.R.800, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Department of Food, dated 9th June, 1978 and the said notification, it is claimed, is the delegation by which the impugned order has been issued. 44. No material has been placed before the Court by the respondents to show that any concurrence has been secured from the Central Government by the State Government in respect of edible oil seed or oil seeds at any time. The very pronouncement of the Apex Court in the decision cited supra squarely advances the case of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no valid Control Order by which there could be any restriction or regulation or licensing provision with respect to “copra” and the contention that the action of the respondent is without jurisdiction is well-founded. 45. The very pronouncement of the Apex Court in the decision cited supra squarely advances the case of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no valid Control Order by which there could be any restriction or regulation or licensing provision with respect to “copra” and the contention that the action of the respondent is without jurisdiction is well-founded. 45. In fact, the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Department of Sugar & Edible Oils, issued a clarification in its D.O. No. 12/4/96-EXP, dated 24th July, 1998, while referring to G.S.R.800, dated 9th June, 1978, clarified with respect to the demand to reimpose Storage Control Order pertaining to edible oil and edible oil seeds, the Central Government has intimated thus: — “4. In this connection, your attention is drawn to Order dated 9th June, 1978 of the Central Government whereby the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to make orders to provide for matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (j) have been delegated to the State Governments under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, subject to certain conditions (copy enclosed). 5. Therefore, the State Government, if it finds it appropriate, can regulate the storage, distribution, etc., of edible oils and oil seeds. We are of the view that the State Governments would be the appropriate authority to take a decision regarding the permissible stock limits and the turn-over period within their area of jurisdiction. In the above circumstances, and considering the widespread public perception that prices of essential commodities have risen sharply in the recent past, you may like to take an emergent decision for use of the aforesaid Order in respect of edible oil seeds/edible oils.” 46. As already pointed out and as laid down by the Apex Court on the construction placed on G.S.R. 800 dated 9th June, 1978, in the District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, Chittoor, cited supra, and as clarified by the Central Government, the State Government could regulate Storage, distribution etc., of edible oils and edible oil seeds and it is for the State Government to take an emergent decision in respect of edible oil seeds and edible oils and should issue fresh orders based upon appropriate delegation and concurrence of the Central Government. 47. 47. It is not the case of the respondents that even after the said judgment of the Apex Court or for that matter even after the D.O. letter written by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, any prior concurrence of the Central Government had been secured or a fresh notification has been issued by the Central Government delegating the powers on the State Government in this respect. 48. This Court called upon the Government Advocate to produce the notifications as well as the delegation or concurrence, if any, issued by the Central Government in this respect. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-Government merely refers to the Trade Order and he is unable to place any authority or concurrence or any other notification which had been issued subsequently and subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, Chittoor, as well as any notification issued after G.S.R.800, dated 9th June 1978 by the Central Government. Despite grant of time, the respondents are unable to produce any notification or delegation or concurrence. 49. In fact this Court while noting the seriousness of the consequences called upon the learned Additional Advocate General to trace and place such notification or delegation or concurrence. After taking few days, the Additional Advocate General on 8.8.2000 represented that there is no notification or delegation or concurrence by the Central Government, nor the State Government had moved the Central Government in this respect. 50. It is not the case of the respondents that the Trade Order was not issued pursuant to the delegation of power conferred in G.S.R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978. In fact, G.S.R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978 supersedes G.S.R.316(E) dated 20th June, 1972 issued by the Central Government. Hence in the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court, it follows that no authority has been conferred on the State Government to issue any notification or control order restricting distribution or trade or imposing a licence provision with respect to edible oil/edible oil seeds. 51. The very ‘delegation of powers by the Central Government to the State Government pursuant to notification G.S.R.800, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, dated 9th June, 1978’, was the very subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, Chittoor. 51. The very ‘delegation of powers by the Central Government to the State Government pursuant to notification G.S.R.800, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, dated 9th June, 1978’, was the very subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, Chittoor. The Apex Court held that failure to secure prior sanction of the Central Government would be in contravention of the delegated power and consequently, a delegatee is not entitled to exercise powers in excess or in contravention of the delegated powers. In this respect, the Apex Court held thus: — “By clause (2) of the notification the Central Government while delegating its powers under Section 3 of the Act to the State Government for issuing orders in respect of the matters specified therein, expressly placed restriction on the State Government relating to any matters specified in clauses (a), (c), (d) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act to the extent that while making an order pertaining to any matters specified in the aforesaid clauses, the State Government shall obtain prior concurrence of the Central Government. The notification is manifestly clear that the Central Government did not delegate to the State Government its general power to pass any order under Section 3(1) of the Act for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of the specified essential commodities and trade and commerce therein. On the other hand the State Government was delegated limited power to make orders in relation to foodstuffs subject to certain conditions specified in the notification after obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government. Any order made by the State Government regulating matters specified in Clause (2) of the Notification without obtaining the prior sanction of the Central Government would be in contravention of the delegated power. A delegate is not entitled to exercise powers in excess or in contravention of the delegated powers. If any order is issued or framed in excess of the powers delegated to the authorities, such order would be illegal and void.” (emphasis supplied) 52. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Civil Supplies v. Government of India, Ministry of Food reported in 2000 Vol. I ALT 14 (D.B) with reference to an identical contention and placing reliance upon the decision of the same Judgment of the Apex Court held thus: — “6. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Civil Supplies v. Government of India, Ministry of Food reported in 2000 Vol. I ALT 14 (D.B) with reference to an identical contention and placing reliance upon the decision of the same Judgment of the Apex Court held thus: — “6. If one goes by the caption or title of the Central Order i.e., Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, the contention of the appellants-State has got to be accepted. But the caption of title of the statute or the Orders made thereunder have to be gone into. If Rule 3 of Central Order 1977 was not to be therein, then straightaway, the contention of the appellants-State has to be accepted. If the Central Order, 1977 was to deal only with storage limits of edible oil see ds and edible oils, then it would not have contained clause 3. A reading of clauses 3 and 4 of the Central Order, 1977 makes it clear that they operate in different fields i.e., clause (3) dealing with requirement of obtaining a licence subject to the persons possession more than required limits of stock (which is meant for his personal consumption) both by the dealer and purchaser, clause 4 places a restriction on a dealer on his possession at a time, of the quantum of the edible oilseeds and edible oils by specifying the maximum limits. The distinction is obvious. Clause 3 deals with the business and Clause 4 deals with storage beyond the maximum limits. Apart from this, there is yet another important circumstance to affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge. The State Government was labouring under misconception that it had power to fix the price, regulate the distribution and also movement of edible oilseeds and edible oils. For exercising such power, it depended on clause 12 of A.P. Order, 1982. In exercise of that power, when restrictions were placed on movement, distribution and also fixation of price by seeking levy, litigation ensued when traders filed writ petitions before this Court and a learned single Judge has ruled that there is no control regarding price, movement or distribution and the same was upheld by a Division Bench and further affirmed by the Supreme Court. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court was in Dist. Collector, Chittoor. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court was in Dist. Collector, Chittoor. v. Chittoor Dist Groundnut Trades Assn , in which the Supreme Court had categorically held that there was no concurrence from the Central Government for the fixation of any price or placing restrictions on movement or distribution of edible oilseeds and edible oils (in those cases, groundnuts was the subject matter). The only requirement being of liability to obtain licence in dealing with groundnuts, if the person was possessing more than the specified quantities of edible oilseeds and edible oils, and under the licence, to furnish returns regarding the storage limits and as the edible oilseeds and edible oils are now deleted from the purview of the Central Order, 1977, as a necessary corollary, the State Government is bound to obey the same and now cannot insis t upon obtaining of licence by dealers or producers relating to edible oilseeds and edible oils.” (emphasis supplied) 53. The view taken by this Court finds support by the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the circumstance this Court holds that even in respect of ‘copra’, the State Government has not been delegated with the authority under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act either to regulate or impose a licensing condition or to restrict or insist for securing a licence and on other matters connected therewith or for distribution of the same. There is no notification also under Clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 so far. Therefore, it follows, in respect of coconu ts either tender or matured or dried, as well as copra, the action of the respondents in seizing the lorry with the consignment of coconuts or copra is without authority and jurisdiction and entire action of the respondents cannot be sustained at all. 54. On the first point, this Court holds that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction either to seize or proceed against “coconuts” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulations of Trade) Order, 1984 or under the provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 55. 54. On the first point, this Court holds that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction either to seize or proceed against “coconuts” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulations of Trade) Order, 1984 or under the provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 55. On the second point, this Court holds that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to seize “copra” and proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 or under the provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 56. On the third point, this Court holds that coconut is not an essential commodity. As regards the copra, in the absence of any delegation or concurrence of the Central Government the very inclusion of copra as an essential article under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 is invalid and inoperative and no action could be taken by relying upon the alleged violation of any of the clauses of the said Regulation of Trade Order. 57. On the fourth point, this Court holds that no action could be taken by the respondents either with respect to coconuts or with respect to copra dealt with or transported or traded by the petitioners under the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as well as the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984. 58. On the fifth point, this Court holds that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for. 59. It is also declared that the seizure is illegal and the respondents are bound to return the consignment of ‘copra’ as well as ‘coconut’ with the respective vehicles to the petitioners. The respondents shall forthwith return the consignment of copra and coconut to the respective petitioners as well as the vehicles. 60. Writ Petitions are allowed as prayed for. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.