The Commissioner of Police had the authority to grant permission for the circus, with the approval of the General Officer Commanding, Fort William, and the petitioner failed to prove discrimination under Article 15 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Mr. Deane is a citizen of India. He is a promoter and organiser of circus shows. On or about 11th May, 1959 he wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, asking for permission to occupy a portion of the' open land known as the Calcutta maidan, opposite to the Calcutta Museum. This was done with a view to utilise the said land for the purpose of accommodating a circus show for a period of two months during the winter of 1959. In his said letter, it was stated that he was willing to contribute a sum of Rs. 2000/- to any charitable fund as chosen by the Commissioner of Police. On the 7th July, 1959 the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Head-quarters Calcutta, informed Mr. Deane that the proposed site was considered unsuitable for holding a circus show and as such the permission could not be granted. On the 7th October. 1959 Mr. Deane wrote to the Commissioner of Police stating that he was prepared to pay a larger amount, the fixation of which was to be left to the Commissioner of Police. There appears to have been no reply given to this letter. It is now necessary to relate certain facts which are not directly connected with the petitioner's application, but are indirectly connected with it. On the 28th May, 1956 the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Dr. Roy wrote a letter to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the then Minister for Health of the Central Government, a copy whereof is set out in paragraph 5 of the petition. This was in reference to an application made by the Great Rayman Circus, for being allotted an area on the Calcutta maidan for holding a circus during the winter of the year 1956. The Chief Minister said as follows:"i am afraid it is not possible for me to grant the request. It is our principle to keep the maidan as an open space for outdoor games and sports and for enabling the citizens of Calcutta to take physical exercises. No commercial enterprise of any kind has ever been allowed on the maidan nor has anybody been allowed to put up shows even on noncommercial basis. If we give permission in one case it will not be possible to refuse permission in other cases subsequently and gradually the maidan will cease to cater to the needs of sports and the amenities of the public. ''

( 2 ) IN December, 1956 permission was granted to the Soviet States Circus to stage its show on a portion of the maidan adjoining the Fort. On the 24th September, 1958 one Mr. S. C. Bose applied to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta for permission to hold a circus on a part of the maidan facing Red Road and/or Casuarina Avenue, during the winter of 1958, upon any reasonable rent that may he charged. On the 17th of November, 1958 the Following reply was received by him from the Commissioner of Police: "i regret that permission for holding circus show on the Calcutta maidan cannot be granted. "

( 3 ) ON or about 30th September. 1958 Messrs. V. C. Kapoor and Co. , applied to the Central Government for permission to hold a circus show on a part of the maidan. On the 26th December, 1958 a reply was received from the Government of India and the relevant portion thereof is as follows :"i am directed to inform you that Calcutta maidan is the only open space available for outdoor games and sports and for enabling the citizens of Calcutta to take physical exercise. It is, therefore, regretted that the land in question cannot be made available for staging a circus show. "

( 4 ) IN or about January, 1959 the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta granted a license or permission to Messrs. A. L. Chopra a partnership firm, to use a portion of the maidan opposite to the Museum and by the side of the Monohar Das Tank, to be used for the purpose of a show known as"holiday on Ice'. All that is stated in the petition about his show is that it was an exhibition of Ice-skating, conducted by 'foreign showmen' and yielded an enormous amount of profit to the sponsors'. It is stated that several persons including the petitioner objecte