2006 (1) TMI 595 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a statutory body or authority which answers the definition of State under Article 12, for purposes of Part-III and IV of the Constitution of India, is an appropriate government for purposes of section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Whether GMIDC and MJP can be termed as appropriate government (that is State Government having regard to definition under section 7 of the Act) for purposes of section 9-A of the Act? Whether the contract dated 19.5.1996 entered into by the Appellant with the State Government, continued to be a contract with the State Government, after its transfer to GMIDC with effect from 1.10.1998? Whether the Appellant incurred any disqualification under section 9-A of the Act, on account of his contracts dated 19.5.1996, 31.12.1998 and 12.4.1999?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a statutory body or authority which answers the definition of 'State' under Article 12 is an 'appropriate government' for purposes of section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Whether GMIDC and MJP can be termed as 'appropriate government' (State Government) for purposes of section 9-A of the Act.
3. Whether the contract dated 19.5.1996 entered into by the Appellant with the State Government continued to be a contract with the State Government after its transfer to GMIDC with effect from 1.10.1998.
4. Whether the Appellant incurred any disqualification under section 9-A of the Act on account of his contracts dated 19.5.1996, 31.12.1998, and 12.4.1999.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re: Question (i)
The court examined whether a statutory body or authority which answers the definition of 'State' under Article 12 is an 'appropriate government' for the purposes of section 9-A of the Act. It was clarified that the term 'State Government' in section 9-A should be understood in its ordinary and normal sense, not with reference to the extended meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the term 'State Government' refers to the three wings of governance of the 'State': the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, and not to its instrumentalities or local or other authorities. Therefore, GMIDC and MJP, although falling within the scope of 'State' under Article 12, are not 'State Government' for the purposes of section 9-A of the Act.

Re: Question (ii)
The court considered whether the contract dated 19.5.1996 entered by the appellant with the Maharashtra State Government, which stood transferred to GMIDC in 1998, could be considered a subsisting contract with the State Government in 2002. It was noted that the contract, by virtue of statutory transfer and vesting under the Maharashtra Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1998, ceased to be a contract with the State Government and became a contract with GMIDC. Hence, the contract dated 19.5.1996, though subsisting on the relevant dates, was not a contract with the appropriate Government but with GMIDC.

Re: Question (iii)
The court examined whether the appellant incurred any disqualification under section 9-A of the Act on account of his contracts dated 19.5.1996, 31.12.1998, and 12.4.1999. It was held that the appellant had no subsisting contract with the appropriate government either for the supply of goods or for the execution of any work undertaken by that government in June 2002. Therefore, the appellant did not incur any disqualification under Section 9-A of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside. The challenge to the appellant's election was rejected, and the Election Petition was dismissed.