9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Preliminary objection regarding the academic nature of the appeal due to the dissolution of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: The appellant challenged the election of the respondent to the Orissa Legislative Assembly on the ground that the respondent was disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 9A disqualifies a person if there subsists a contract with the appropriate Government for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government. The appellant alleged that the respondent had five subsisting contracts with the Government of Orissa at the time of nomination. However, during arguments, the appellant conceded that only three contracts were relevant. The respondent countered by stating that he undertook these works as a leader of the people and Naib Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, not in his individual capacity or in the course of his trade or business. Furthermore, the respondent argued that these contracts were fully performed before the date of nomination, invoking the Explanation to Section 9A, which states that a contract shall be deemed not to subsist if fully performed by the person. The High Court found that the respondent undertook the contracts on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and not in his individual capacity. It also held that the contracts were fully performed before the date of nomination, applying the Explanation to Section 9A. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the respondent was not disqualified under Section 9A and dismissed the election petition. 2. Preliminary Objection Regarding the Academic Nature of the Appeal: During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the Orissa Legislative Assembly was dissolved by the Governor. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal had become academic due to the dissolution of the Assembly. The respondent contended that the Court should not decide an issue unless it is a "living issue" between the parties. Since the Assembly was dissolved, setting aside the respondent's election would have no practical consequence. The Supreme Court agreed with the respondent's preliminary objection, stating that it is a well-settled practice that a Court should not decide an academic issue. The Court emphasized that deciding whether the respondent was disqualified under Section 9A would be futile and meaningless after the dissolution of the Assembly. The Court distinguished this case from situations involving allegations of corrupt practices, where a finding of corrupt practice has serious consequences, including electoral disqualifications. The Court noted that in cases of corrupt practice, the trial must proceed to its logical end to ensure that those who corrupt the course of an election are dealt with according to law. However, in this case, the only ground for challenging the respondent's election was disqualification under Section 9A, which does not involve any act corrupting the election process and has no future consequences. The appellant relied on previous case law to argue that an election petition does not become infructuous upon the dissolution of the Legislature. However, the Court clarified that the issue was not about abatement but about the academic nature of the appeal. The Court concluded that the dissolution of the Orissa Legislative Assembly rendered the appeal academic and dismissed it with no orders as to costs.
|
