CAPTAIN GANP ATI SINGHJI versus THE STATE OF AJMER AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 03-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, B. JAGANNADHADAS, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Amount Awarded
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

)! 
'· 
-
-
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. 40-
Chief 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 empower-
ing District Magistrate to revoke permit without assigning any reason 
or without previous notice--Sub-rules-W hether ultra vires the Regu-
lation. 
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 sa-
tisfy 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 pre-
vious notice',. 
The appellant's application for a permit to hold a fair was re-
fused 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 appli-
cation 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 respon-
dents. 
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 per-
mit from the District Magistrate. 
Accordingly the ap-
pellant applied for a permit. This was ref
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.