1994 (4) TMI 382 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the common judgment passed by the first appellate Court specifically stated that it dismissed the plaintiffs suit with respect to one-third of the plot by its order allowing one appeal and dismissed the suit with respect to the other one-third by its order allowing the second appeal? Held that - The High Court came to two decisions. It came to one decision in respect of the invalidity of the appellants election in Appeal No. 7. It came to another decision in Appeal No. 8 with respect to the justification of the claim of respondent No. 1 to be declared as a duly elected candidate a decision which had to follow the decision that the election of the appellant was invalid and also the finding that respondent No. 2 as Ghatwal was not a properly nominated candidate. We are therefore of opinion that so long as the order in the appellant s appeal No. 7 confirming the order setting aside his election on the ground that he was a holder of an office of profit under the Bihar Government and therefore could not have been a properly nominated candidate stands he cannot question the finding about his holding an office of profit in the present appeal which is founded on the contention that finding is incorrect. Thus accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election of the appellant.
2. Whether the office of a Ghatwal is an office of profit under the Bihar Government.
3. Allegations of corrupt practices by the appellant.
4. Declaration of Kam Deo Prasad as the duly elected candidate.
5. Applicability of the principle of res judicata.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Election of the Appellant:
The appellant, Badri Narain Singh, was declared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1957. However, Kam Deo Prasad, a respondent, filed an election petition challenging the election on grounds that the appellant held an office of profit, which disqualified him from being elected. The Election Tribunal found the appellant guilty of corrupt practices and set aside his election. The High Court, upon appeal, confirmed the setting aside of the appellant's election but on different grounds, specifically that the appellant held an office of profit as a Ghatwal.

2. Office of a Ghatwal as an Office of Profit:
The core issue revolved around whether a Ghatwal held an office of profit under the Bihar Government. The Election Tribunal initially held that a Ghatwal was not a holder of an office of profit. However, the High Court disagreed and concluded that both the appellant and respondent No. 2, as Ghatwals, held offices of profit, thus disqualifying them from being elected. This finding was pivotal in setting aside the appellant's election.

3. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
The Election Tribunal found the appellant guilty of corrupt practices, contributing to the decision to set aside his election. However, the High Court did not accept this finding of corrupt practices. Instead, it based its decision on the appellant holding an office of profit, which was sufficient to invalidate his election.

4. Declaration of Kam Deo Prasad as the Duly Elected Candidate:
Kam Deo Prasad sought not only to void the appellant's election but also to be declared the duly elected candidate. The Election Tribunal did not grant this declaration. Upon appeal, the High Court, finding that both the appellant and respondent No. 2 were disqualified, declared Kam Deo Prasad as the duly elected candidate since he was the only remaining valid candidate.

5. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata:
A preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was barred by the principle of res judicata because the appellant did not appeal against the High Court's order in Appeal No. 7, which confirmed the setting aside of his election. The Supreme Court upheld this objection, stating that the finding that the appellant held an office of profit was conclusive and could not be challenged in the current appeal. The decision in Appeal No. 7 was final and binding, thus barring the appellant from contesting the same issue in Appeal No. 8.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, accepting the preliminary objection based on res judicata. The appellant could not challenge the finding that he held an office of profit, which was the basis for setting aside his election. Consequently, the declaration of Kam Deo Prasad as the duly elected candidate was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →