Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1954 (12) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1954 (12) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Refusal of permit to hold a cattle fair.
2. Interpretation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
3. Validity of rules framed by the Chief Commissioner.
4. Authority of the District Magistrate to revoke permits.
5. Ultra vires actions of the Chief Commissioner and District Magistrate.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, as the Istimrardar of Kharwa, had held a cattle fair for years but was denied a permit under new rules framed by the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer. The appellant sought relief under article 226 of the Constitution, claiming infringement of fundamental rights and challenging the validity of the rules.

2. The Judicial Commissioner initially refused to issue a writ but granted leave to appeal, recognizing the substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. The appellant's right to hold a fair on his land was considered under article 19(1)(f) and (g), ensuring the right to engage in the occupation of holding a fair unless restricted by law in the interest of the general public.

3. The rules framed by the Chief Commissioner, requiring permits from the District Magistrate for fairs, were found to exceed the authority granted by the Regulation. The District Magistrate was given arbitrary powers to determine compliance with conservancy and sanitation requirements, which was deemed ultra vires as it delegated authority beyond the Chief Commissioner's powers.

4. The District Magistrate's absolute power to revoke permits without reasons was also considered ultra vires as it lacked discretion and control, going against the spirit of the Regulation which aimed to ensure compliance with conservancy and sanitation standards without arbitrary prohibitions.

5. The Court held that the rules were void to the extent indicated and quashed the District Magistrate's order, declaring the actions of both the Chief Commissioner and District Magistrate as ultra vires. The judgment emphasized the need for rules to be within the scope of delegated authority and not infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates