Ultra vires fair-control rules: invalid permit refusal based on uncontrolled administrative discretion was quashed.

Rules under the Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877, insofar as they required a District Magistrate's permit and vested him with control over fairs, exceeded the rule-making power because the Regulation authorised only measures for watch and ward, conservancy and sanitation, not an uncontrolled discretion to decide whether an activity could be held at all. Those impugned sub-rules were therefore ultra vires and void. A permit refusal based on a blanket policy that only local bodies would be allowed was also invalid, because it was not authorised by the rules or any valid law. The administrative order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rules framed under the Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877, insofar as they required a permit from the District Magistrate and authorised him to control the holding of fairs, were within the rule-making power conferred by the Regulation. (ii) Whether the District Magistrate's refusal to grant a permit on the ground that permits would be issued only to local bodies was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the rules framed under the Ajmer Laws Regulation of 1877, insofar as they required a permit from the District Magistrate and authorised him to control the holding of fairs, were within the rule-making power conferred by the Regulation.

Analysis: The Regulation authorised rules for maintaining watch and ward and for establishing a proper system of conservancy and sanitation at fairs and other large public assemblies. The impugned rules did not themselves establish such a system; instead, they vested the District Magistrate with authority to decide whether an applicant was in a position to establish a proper system and to revoke permits without notice or reasons. That amounted to conferring on a subordinate authority a power which the Regulation vested in the Chief Commissioner and also authorised an arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion.

Conclusion: The rules were ultra vires to the extent challenged and were void.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Magistrate's refusal to grant a permit on the ground that permits would be issued only to local bodies was valid.

Analysis: The District Magistrate rejected the application on a ground not authorised by the rules, which only permitted refusal by reference to the applicant's ability to provide conservancy, sanitation and watch and ward. Since the relevant sub-rules themselves were invalid and no other valid law empowered the District Magistrate to impose a blanket ban on private individuals, the refusal could not stand.

Conclusion: The refusal was invalid and the order of the District Magistrate was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's right to hold the fair on his land could not be defeated by rules or an administrative order that went beyond the statutory power and conferred arbitrary control on the District Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate rule-making authority cannot, under colour of regulating fairs, delegate to a lower officer an uncontrolled discretion to prohibit an activity which the parent statute permits, and an administrative refusal based on such invalid control is itself unenforceable.

---