CAPTAIN GANP ATI SINGHJI v. Tiu Stat< of Ajm<r

The first three sub-rules of Rule 1 deal with permits. the holding of a fair except under a the District Magistrate, and They prohibit permit issued by District Magistrate is enjoined to-- "satisfy himself, before in a position issuing sanitation any permit, establish a proper and watch conservancy, the applicant system of ward at the fair". The fourth sub-rule empowers the District Magistrate "revoke any such permit without ass1gnmg reasons or giving any previous notice". When the appellant 9-7-1952, the District Magistrate replied : applied for a permit on "It has been decided to private fairs will be permits to hold and not gretted that you cannot be permitted and you are the idea". individuals. as a matter of policy issued only to local bodies It is, therefore, to hold the fair abandon therefore requested to please In our opinion, the rules travel beyond the Regn- Captain Ganpati Singhji v. The State of Ajmer and Another Bose]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1069 in his to make rules for and incorporating it respects. The Regulation em lation in at least two powers the Chief Commissioner establishment of a system of conservancy and sanita tion. He can only do this by bringing a system existence so that all concerned can know what the system is and make to comply with it. What he has done arrangements is to leave it to the District Magistrate 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 is: obviously the District Magistrate. There system fore, in effect, the rules empower the District Magis trate to make his own system and see it is observed. But the Regulation confers this power on the Chief Commissioner and not on the District Magis the Chief Commissioner trate. in delegating this authority to the District Magistrate is ultra vires. therefore the action of the right of persons 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 previous notice". This absolute and arbitrary power uncontrolled by any discretion is also ultra vires. The Regulation assumes to hold fairs, and all it requires is that those who do so should have due regard tor the requirements sanitation; and in order what these requirements are, the Chief Commissioner is given the power to draw (not some lesser authority) If they up a set of rules stating what is necessary. are, so are in a position to observe to hold far as the Regulation is concerned, their fair, for the Chief Commissioner cannot by right. Therefore, Rule and the arbitrarily to prohibit that which the Constitution, not only allow, but guarantee. these rules, they entitled .restricting of conservancy they may know invest the District Magistrate witl1 there is no other law As these sub-rules of Rule 1 are ultra vires, District Magistrate's order, which in effect prohibits the holding · of the fair, is also bad for, without law · validly aid of these rules or of some other ·'' 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 v. District decision of Board, Muzafarnagar('). to do this Court in Tahir Hussain it. The matter is covered by is set aside. We declare The appeal is allowed and the order of the Judicial that the rules Commissioner 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 the District J.-The order Magistrate dated the 18th September, 1952, declining to grant a permit to hold the cattle fair on the ground to issue permits only to local that it has been decided is bad for two bodies and not to private reasons. individuals

#1. The rules under which he in this behalf only authorise permits himself that the applicant lish a proper system of conservancy, watch and ward at the fair terms and conditions as he may deem do not authorise him ground on w111ch he has done. is to grant ·or refuse him to satisfy to estab and also to impose such to reject an application on the is in a position fit. But sanitation in exercise

#2. The rules themselves under which the permit has been asked for and with reference to which the the permit are District Magistrate declined to grant not within the ambit of the rule-making power. These of the rules purport to have been framed powers conferred by sections 40 and 41 of the Ajmer Laws Regulation, framing of the rules "for the maintenance of watch and ward and the establishment or a proper system of conservancy and public as framed can be held are to the effect ( 1) except under a permit of the District Magistrate, (2) issuing a permit the District Magistrate that before that the applicant is in a position 1s to satisfy himself that no such fair

#1877. Section 40 assemblies". But fairs and other the actual rules sanitation at authorises (1) A. I. R. 1954 S.C. 630. , 1954 Captain G{lflpati Singhji v. The State of Ajmer and Another Jagannadhwfas J. :s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1071 conservancy, sanita to establish a proper system of tion 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 themselves constitute a system of con rules which in .servancy, result that is brought about is not within the intend ment of the making of the section which authorises the rules. A system of ad hoc control of responsible regulating ·officers may, possibly be one method such large arrangements the sanitary and other .gatherings. But a intended to 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. sanitation and watch and ward. Thus constitute if it - The impugned order of the District Magistrate be ing bad on both the above grounds, this is enough to the appeal and it is not necessary to ex dispose of to whether the impugned order press any opinion as rights appellant's infringes under article 19. The appeal must accordingly be :allowed. fundamental Appeal allowed. DUNI CHAND RAT ARIA v. BHUW ALKA BROTHERS LTD. 1954 December 3 . ' [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., BHAGWATI, JAGAN NADHADAS 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 per-