Judgement

BOSE J. : The appellant is the Istimrardar of Kharwa. According to him, he has held 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 (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 Commissioner s Court at Ajmer for the issue of a writ directing the authorities concerned to permit the appellant 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 vires the Regulation under which he purported to act.

2. The learned Judicial Commissioner refused to issue the writ but granted leave to appeal under Article 132(1) of the Constitution in, the following terms :

"I am of opinion that the question whether the Regulation and the bye-laws framed thereunder amount to a reasonable restriction on the appellant s fundamental right to hold a cattle fair in 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.

3. It is admitted that the land on which the fair is normally held belongs to the appellant. That being so, he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) 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 on that occupation on his land provided it does not infringe any law imposing reasonable resrictions on that right in 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 is Sections 40 and 41 of Regulation III of 1877. Under Section 40, the Chief Commissioner is empowered, among other things, to make rules about

"(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 in 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 ensure from such breach, a punishment, on conviction before a Magistrate, not exceeding rigorous or simple imprisonment for a month or a fine of two hundred rupees, or both".

4. 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.

5. 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 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 pe