2011 (4) TMI 1319 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the election of the Returned Candidate viz. the respondent from 220 - Cheranmahadevi Assembly Constituency of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as null and void?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the nomination papers filed by the respondent.
2. Interpretation and application of the Government Order (G.O.) dated November 16, 1951.
3. Authority and competence of the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer to terminate contracts.
4. Disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Nomination Papers Filed by the Respondent:
The appellant contested the election of the respondent on the grounds that the respondent had subsisting contracts with the Government at the time of filing his nomination papers. The appellant argued that the respondent's nomination papers should have been rejected as per Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which disqualifies a person with subsisting contracts with the Government from contesting elections.

2. Interpretation and Application of the Government Order (G.O.) Dated November 16, 1951:
The G.O. allowed contractors to terminate their contracts to contest elections, provided certain conditions were met, including the availability of a substitute contractor acceptable to the Chief Engineer. The G.O. specified that there should be a final and complete settlement of rights and liabilities between the Government and the existing contractor. The High Court initially held that the G.O. was merely an administrative instruction and not a statutory requirement. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the G.O. had to be strictly followed for valid termination of contracts.

3. Authority and Competence of the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer to Terminate Contracts:
The Supreme Court found that only the Chief Engineer was competent to terminate contracts under the G.O. The Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer did not have the authority to terminate the contracts or ratify such termination. The evidence showed that the Divisional Engineer terminated the contracts, which was later ratified by the Superintending Engineer. However, this process was deemed invalid as it did not comply with the G.O., which required the Chief Engineer's direct involvement.

4. Disqualification Under Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951:
Section 9A disqualifies a person with subsisting contracts with the Government from contesting elections. The Supreme Court concluded that the contracts entered into by the respondent were not validly terminated as per the G.O. dated November 16, 1951, and thus were subsisting at the time of filing the nomination papers. Consequently, the respondent was disqualified under Section 9A, rendering his election null and void.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring the respondent's election illegal, null, and void due to non-compliance with the G.O. dated November 16, 1951, and the resultant disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific procedures and authorities outlined in the G.O. for the termination of contracts to stand valid in the context of election eligibility.