( 1 ) -IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner Himatlal K. Shah challenges the orders Annexure A and B both dated 2nd September 1969 by which the Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch second respondent in this petition-refused to grant permission to the petitioner to hold public meeting near Panch Kuva Darwaja on the 4th and 5th September 1969. The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of Maha Gujarat Nav Jawan Sangh. The petitioner sent two applications on 30th August 1969 to the first respondent Commissioner. of Police Ahmedabad praying for a permission to hold meetings near Panch Kuva Darwaja on the 4th and 5th September 1969. Second respondent refused to give permission for the meeting intended to be held on 4th September 1969 on the ground that the application was not made to the concerned officer not less than five days before the time at which the public meeting was to be held as required by rule 9 of the Rules for the conduct behaviour and action of the persons desirous of conducting - processions or holding or convening public meeting within the areas covered by the Commissionerate of Police Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as The Rules.) Second respondent refused permission for holding meeting on 5th September 1969 on the ground that under a permission granted by him on an earlier occasion a meeting was held on 7th August 1969 but immediately after the meeting was over riot occurred and mischief to private and public property was committed and in respect of which offence was registered at Karanj Police Station and in view of the position then prevailing and in order to maintain law and order it was not possible to grant such permission. The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned two orders of the second respondent refusing to grant permission to hold meetings.

( 2 ) MR. H. M. Mehta learned Advocate who appeared for the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned orders on the following grounds:- (1) Sub-clause (o) of sec. 33 (1) of the Bombay Police Act does not empower the Commissioner of Police to frame rules requiring any person to obtain prior permission for holding meeting and the rule so framed is in excess of the rule making power and is consequently invalid. (2) Sub-clause (o) of sec. 33 (1) of the Bombay Police Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative powers; and is ultra vires Art 14 in that it confers uncontrolled naked and arbitrary powers on the Commissioner of Police to grant or refuse permission at his sweet will and pleasure without laying down any guiding principles. (3) Sub-clause (o) of sec. 33 (1) and the Rules framed thereunder are ultra vires Arts. 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (b) inasmuch as they put a total ban on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble peaceably; and even if it be held that the rules put restriction on the exercise of the said fundamental rights the same are unreasonable. We shall take up these grounds in the order in which they are set out.

( 3 ) AT the outset it is necessary to make it clear that the principal prayer in the petition namely the validity of the two impugned orders Annexure ia and B had become infructuous by lapse of time as the dates on which the intended meetings were to be held had long since passed and even if the declaration sought was granted it would in no way help the petitioner. But Mr. Mehta submitted that the organization of which the petitioner is an office bearer has to organize meetings on a number of occasions and every time the question of applying for permission would arise and therefore it is necessary to get a decision whether the rules under which prior permission for holding meeting is insisted upon are legal and valid. Therefore even though specific prayer for quashing the impugned order cannot now be granted as it has become infructuous we propose to examine the aforementioned contentions raised in this petition.

( 4 ) THE fir