# Captain Ganpati Singhji v. Tiu Stat< of Ajm<r and Anoth"

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1065
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J, MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, Bhagwati, Jagannadhadas, V:Enkatarama Ayyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/captain-ganpati-singhji-v-tiu-stat-of-ajm-r-and-anoth-298
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877
(Reg. III of 1877), s. 40Chief Commissioner empowered to make rules for establishing a system
of conservancy and sanitation at fairs-First three sub-rules of Rule
1 prohibit the holding of fair except under a permit issued by District
Magistrate
who is required to satisfy himself that applicant can
establish a proper system of conservancy-Fourth sub-rule empowering District Magistrate to revoke permit without assigning any reason
or without previous notice--Sub-rules-W hether ultra vires the Regulation.
Under s. 40 of the Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877 (Reg. III of
1877) the Chief Commissioner is empowered, among other things, to
make rules about " ............ the establishment of a proper system
of conservancy
and sanitation at fairs .................... ". The
first three sub-rules of Rule 1, framed by the
Chief Commissioner
prohibit the holding of a fair except under a permit issued
by the
District Magistrate and the District Magistrate is enjoined "to satisfy himself, before issuing any permit that the applicant is in a
position to establish a proper system of conservancy, sanitation and
watch and ward at the fair".
·
The fourth sub-rule empowers the District Magistrate "to revoke
any such permit without assigning any reasons or giving any previous notice',.
The appellant's application for a permit to hold a fair was refused by the · District Magistrate on the ground that no more permits
were to be issued to private individuals.
Held, that under the Regulation it is the Chief Commissioner
and not the District Magistrate who has power to frame rules, that
the Chief Commissioner had no authority to delegate that power
and that the Rules made by the latter are therefore ultra vires;
Held further, that the Rule is also ultra vires for the reason
that in authorising the District Magistrate to revoke a permit granted
"without giving any reason or previous notice" it invests him with
a power to prohibit the exercise by the citizen of the constitutionally
protected right to hold fairs.
The District Magistrate's order, which in effect prohibits the
holding of the fair, is therefore bad, for, without the aid of these
rules or ~ome other law validly empowering him to impose the ban,
he has no 'power in himself to do it.
)
r954
Derembdr 3
1954
Captain Ganpati
Singhji
v.
Tiu Stat< of Ajm<r
and Anoth"
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
Per JAGANNADHADAS J. (DAs J. concurring):-
The impugned order of the District Magistrate is bad:-
(i) because the rules do not authorise him to reject an application on the ground on which he has done;
(ii) because the net effect of the rules is to establish a system
of ad hoc control by the District Magistrate through the issue of. a
permit and by the vesting of other powers in him under the rules.
This result is not within the intendment of the section which autho~
rises the making of the rules.
Tahir Hussain v.
District Board,
Muzafarnagar (A.I.R. 195+
S.C. 630) referred to.
·
C1VIL
APPELLATE
JuR1so1cTION: Civil
Appeal No.
43 of 1954.
Appeal under Article 132(1) of the
Constitution
of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd
'<
November 1952 of the Judicial Commissioner's
Court,
/
Ajmer, in Misc. Petition No. 226 of 1952.
N. C. Chatterji (I. N. Shroff, with him)
for the
appellant.
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale for the respondents.
1954. December 3.
The judgment of Mehr Chand
Mahajan C.J., Mukherjea,
Vivian Bose, Bhagwati
and
Venkatarama
Ayyar JJ. was
delivered
by
Bose
J.
The judgment of Das and
Jagannadhadas J.
was
delivered by Jagannadhadas J.
Bose
J .-The appellant
1s
the
Istimrardar
of
Kharwa.
According to him, he has he1d a cattle fair
on his estate every
year for some twenty years.
On
8-1-1951 the
Chief Commissioner of Ajmer
framed
certain rules for the
regulation of cattle
and other
fairs in the
State of Ajmer.
He purported to do this
under sections 40 and 41 of the Ajmer Laws Regulation
of 1877 (Reg. III of 1877).
One of the rules
required
that persons de

## Text

)!
'·
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1065
CAPTAIN GANP ATI SINGHJI
o.
THE STATE OF AJMER AND ANOTHER.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA,
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS
and V:ENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.]
Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877
(Reg. III of 1877), s. 40Chief Commissioner empowered to make rules for establishing a system
of conservancy and sanitation at fairs-First three sub-rules of Rule
1 prohibit the holding of fair except under a permit issued by District
Magistrate
who is required to satisfy himself that applicant can
establish a proper system of conservancy-Fourth sub-rule empowering District Magistrate to revoke permit without assigning any reason
or without previous notice--Sub-rules-W hether ultra vires the Regulation.
Under s. 40 of the Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877 (Reg. III of
1877) the Chief Commissioner is empowered, among other things, to
make rules about " ............ the establishment of a proper system
of conservancy
and sanitation at fairs .................... ". The
first three sub-rules of Rule 1, framed by the
Chief Commissioner
prohibit the holding of a fair except under a permit issued
by the
District Magistrate and the District Magistrate is enjoined "to satisfy himself, before issuing any permit that the applicant is in a
position to establish a proper system of conservancy, sanitation and
watch and ward at the fair".
·
The fourth sub-rule empowers the District Magistrate "to revoke
any such permit without assigning any reasons or giving any previous notice',.
The appellant's application for a permit to hold a fair was refused by the · District Magistrate on the ground that no more permits
were to be issued to private individuals.
Held, that under the Regulation it is the Chief Commissioner
and not the District Magistrate who has power to frame rules, that
the Chief Commissioner had no authority to delegate that power
and that the Rules made by the latter are therefore ultra vires;
Held further, that the Rule is also ultra vires for the reason
that in authorising the District Magistrate to revoke a permit granted
"without giving any reason or previous notice" it invests him with
a power to prohibit the exercise by the citizen of the constitutionally
protected right to hold fairs.
The District Magistrate's order, which in effect prohibits the
holding of the fair, is therefore bad, for, without the aid of these
rules or ~ome other law validly empowering him to impose the ban,
he has no 'power in himself to do it.
)
r954
Derembdr 3
1954
Captain Ganpati
Singhji
v.
Tiu Stat< of Ajm<r
and Anoth"
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
Per JAGANNADHADAS J. (DAs J. concurring):-
The impugned order of the District Magistrate is bad:-
(i) because the rules do not authorise him to reject an application on the ground on which he has done;
(ii) because the net effect of the rules is to establish a system
of ad hoc control by the District Magistrate through the issue of. a
permit and by the vesting of other powers in him under the rules.
This result is not within the intendment of the section which autho~
rises the making of the rules.
Tahir Hussain v.
District Board,
Muzafarnagar (A.I.R. 195+
S.C. 630) referred to.
·
C1VIL
APPELLATE
JuR1so1cTION: Civil
Appeal No.
43 of 1954.
Appeal under Article 132(1) of the
Constitution
of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd
'<
November 1952 of the Judicial Commissioner's
Court,
/
Ajmer, in Misc. Petition No. 226 of 1952.
N. C. Chatterji (I. N. Shroff, with him)
for the
appellant.
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale for the respondents.
1954. December 3.
The judgment of Mehr Chand
Mahajan C.J., Mukherjea,
Vivian Bose, Bhagwati
and
Venkatarama
Ayyar JJ. was
delivered
by
Bose
J.
The judgment of Das and
Jagannadhadas J.
was
delivered by Jagannadhadas J.
Bose
J .-The appellant
1s
the
Istimrardar
of
Kharwa.
According to him, he has he1d a cattle fair
on his estate every
year for some twenty years.
On
8-1-1951 the
Chief Commissioner of Ajmer
framed
certain rules for the
regulation of cattle
and other
fairs in the
State of Ajmer.
He purported to do this
under sections 40 and 41 of the Ajmer Laws Regulation
of 1877 (Reg. III of 1877).
One of the rules
required
that persons desiring to hold fairs should obtain a permit from the District Magistrate.
Accordingly the appellant applied for a permit. This was refused on the
ground that no more permits
were to be issued to
private individuals.
The appellant
thereupon .applied
under article 226 of the Constitution to the Judicial
.
..
..
-
_,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1067
Commissioner's Court at Ajmer for the issue
of a writ
directing the authorities concerned to permit the appeilant to hold his fair as usual.
He contended
that
his fundamental rights under the
Constitution
were
infringed and also that the rules promulgated
by the
Chief
Commissioner were ultra vzres the
Regulation
under which he purported to act.
The learned Judicial Commissioner refused to issue
the writ but granted leave to
appeal
under
article
132 ( 1) of the Constitution m the foilowing terms:
"I am of opinion that the
question
whether the
regulation
and
the
bye-laws
framed
thereunder
amount to a reasonable restriction on
the appeilant's
fundamental right to hold a cattle
fair
m his own
land involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution".
The leave is confined to the vires
of
the
Regulation
and the bye-laws but we allowed the appellant to
attack the validity of the
District
Magistrate's
action
as well.
It is admitted that the land on
which the fair 1s
normally held
belongs to the appellant.
That being
so, he has a fundamental right under article 19(1) (£)
which can only be restricted in the manner permitted
by sub-clause (5).
The holding
of
an annual fair is
an occupation or business
within the meaning of article 19(1) (g), therefore, the appellant also has a fundamental right to engage in that occupation on his land
provided it does not infringe any law imposing "reasonable restrictions on that right m the interests
of
the general public", or any law
"relating to-
( i) the
professional
or
technical
qualifications
necessary for
practising . ......... or carrying on"
the
occupation or business in question.
(Article 19(6) as
amended in 1951).
The only law relevant here 1s sections 40 and 41
of
Regulation III of 1877.
Under section 40,
the
Chief
Commissioner is empowered,
among
other things,
to
make rules about1954
Captain Ganpati
Singhji
v.
The State of Ajmer
and Another
Bose].
' 1954
Captain Ganpati
Singhji
v.
Th< State of Ajmer
and Another
-l
Bose:J.
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955}
" (a) the maintenance of watch and ward, and the
establishment of a proper system of conservancy
and
sanitation at fairs and other large public assemblies;
(b) the imposition of taxes for the purposes mentioned in clause (a) of this section on persons holding
or joining any of the assemblies therein referred to ;
( e) the registration of cattle".
'
Section 41 provides
for
penalties
m the following
terms:
"The Chief
Commissioner
may, in
making any
rule under this Regulation, attach to the breach of it,
in addition to any other consequences that would
enure from such breach, a punishment,
on
conv1ct1on
before a Magistrate, not exceeding rigorous or simple
imprisonment for a month
or a fine
of two hundred
rupees, or both".
These sections were not impugned in the argument
before us nor were they attacked in the petition
made
to the Judicial Commissioner, so we will pass on to
the rules made by the Chief Commissioner.
The first three sub-rules of Rule 1 deal with permits.
They prohibit the holding of a fair except under a
permit issued
by
the
District
Magistrate,
and
the
District Magistrate is enjoined to--
"satisfy himself, before issuing
the applicant is in a position
to
system of
conservancy,
sanitation
ward at the fair".
any permit,
that
establish a proper
and
watch
and
The fourth sub-rule empowers the
District
Magistrate
to
"revoke any such permit without
ass1gnmg
any
reasons or giving any previous notice".
When the
appellant
applied
for a
permit
on
9-7-1952, the District Magistrate replied :
"It has been
decided
that
as a matter of policy
permits to hold fairs will be issued only to local bodies
and not to private individuals.
It is, therefore,
regretted that you cannot be permitted
to hold the fair
and you
are therefore requested to please
abandon
the idea".
In our opinion, the rules travel beyond the
Regn-
·''
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1069
lation in at least two
respects.
The
Regulation
empowers the Chief Commissioner to make rules for the
establishment of a system of conservancy
and sanitation. He can only do this by bringing a system into
existence
and incorporating it in his
rules
so that
all concerned can know what the system is and make
arrangements to comply with it.
What he has done
is to leave it to the District
Magistrate to see
that
persons desiring to
hold a fair
are in a position "to
establish a proper system of conservancy, etc."
But
who, according to this, is to determine what a proper
system is: obviously the
District
Magistrate.
Therefore, in effect, the rules empower the District Magistrate to
make his own system and see
that
it is
observed.
But the
Regulation confers this power on
the Chief Commissioner and not on the District Magistrate. therefore the action of the Chief Commissioner
in delegating this
authority to the District
Magistrate
is ultra vires.
Further, under the fourth sub-rule of
Rule 1 the
District
Magistrate is empowered to revoke a permit
granted "without assigning any reasons or giving
any
previous notice".
This absolute and
arbitrary
power
uncontrolled by any discretion is also ultra vires.
The
Regulation assumes the right of persons to hold fairs,
and all it requires is that those who do so should have
due regard tor the requirements
of conservancy
and
sanitation; and in order that they
may know just
what these requirements are, the
Chief
Commissioner
(not some lesser authority) is given the power to draw
up a set of rules stating what is necessary.
If they
are in a position to observe
these rules, they
are, so
far as the Regulation is concerned,
entitled
to hold
their fair, for there is no other law .restricting
that
right. Therefore, the Chief Commissioner cannot by
Rule invest the
District
Magistrate
witl1
the right
arbitrarily to prohibit that
which the
law
and the
Constitution, not only allow, but guarantee.
As these sub-rules of
Rule 1 are ultra vires,
the
District
Magistrate's order,
which in effect prohibits
the holding · of the fair, is also bad for,
without the
aid
of these rules
or
of some
other
law · validly
Captain Ganpati
Singhji
v.
The State of Ajmer
and Another
Bose].
1954
Captain Ganpati
Singhji
v.
The State of AjrMr
and Another
Bose].
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955j
empowering him to impose the ban, he has no power
in himself to do it. The matter is covered by the
decision of
this
Court in Tahir Hussain
v. District
Board, Muzafarnagar(').
The appeal is allowed and the order of the Judicial
Commissioner
is set aside.
We declare
that the rules
are void to the extent indicated above
and
we quash
the order of the
District
Magistrate
dated 18-9-1952.
But we make no order about costs
because the point
on which we have proceeded was not taken in proper.
time in this Court.
]AGANNADHADAS
J.-The order
of
the
District
Magistrate dated the 18th
September,
1952,
declining
to grant a permit to hold the cattle fair on the ground
that it has been decided to issue permits only to local
bodies and not to private
individuals is bad for two
reasons.
1. The rules under which he is to grant ·or refuse
permits in this behalf only authorise
him to satisfy
himself that the applicant
is in a
position
to establish a proper system
of conservancy,
sanitation
and
watch and ward at the fair
and also to impose such
terms and conditions as he may deem
fit.
But
they
do not authorise him to reject an application
on the
ground on w111ch he has done.
2. The rules themselves under
which the
permit
has been asked for and with reference to which the
District
Magistrate declined to grant the
permit are
not within the ambit of the rule-making power.
These
rules purport to have been framed in exercise
of the
powers conferred by sections 40 and 41 of the Ajmer
Laws
Regulation,
1877.
Section 40
authorises
the
framing of the rules "for the
maintenance
of
watch
and ward and the establishment or a proper system of
conservancy and sanitation at fairs and other large
public
assemblies".
But the actual rules
as framed
are to the effect ( 1) that
no such fair
can
be held
except under a permit of the District
Magistrate, (2)
that before issuing a permit the
District
Magistrate
1s to satisfy himself
that the applicant is in a position
(1) A. I. R. 1954 S.C. 630.
,
-
. '
:s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1071
to establish a proper system of
conservancy,
sanitation and watch and ward at the fair, (3) that
when
issuing a permit the
District
Magistrate
can impose
such terms and conditions as he may
deem fit.
The
net effect of these rules is merely to establish a system
·of ad hoc control by the District Magistrate through
the issue of a permit and by the vesting of other powers
in him under the rules.
These
cannot
be said to be
rules which in themselves constitute a system of con-
.servancy,
sanitation and watch and ward.
Thus
the
result that is brought about is not within the intendment of the section which authorises the making of
the rules. A system of ad hoc control of responsible
·officers may, possibly be one method
of regulating
the sanitary and
other
arrangements
at
such large
.gatherings.
But if it
is intended to
constitute
a
system of ad hoc control
with
reasonable safeguards,
the power to make rules in that behalf must be granted
to the rule-making authority by the legislative organ
in appropriate language.
The impugned order of the District Magistrate
being bad on both the above grounds, this is enough to
dispose of the appeal and it is not necessary to express any opinion as to whether the impugned order
infringes
also
the
appellant's
fundamental
rights
under article 19.
The appeal must accordingly be
:allowed.
Appeal allowed.
DUNI CHAND RAT ARIA
v.
BHUW ALKA BROTHERS LTD.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.]
West Bengal Jute Goods Future Ordinance, 1949, s. 2(1) ( b) (i)
-Actual delivery of possession-Whether includes symbolical as well
as constructive delivery of pos.<ession-lndian Sale of Goods Act, 1930
(111 of 1930), s. 2(2)-Delivery-Meaning of.
Delivery has been defined in s. 2(2) of Indian Sale of Goods
Act, 1930, as meaning voluntary transfer of possession from one per1954
Captain G{lflpati
Singhji
v.
The State of Ajmer
and Another
Jagannadhwfas J.
1954
December 3