9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Classification of a Lambardar under Section 123(7)(f) of the Act. 3. Whether a Lambardar is a person in the service of Government. 4. Corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 The central question in this appeal concerns the true construction of the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The section defines corrupt practices and specifies that obtaining assistance for the furtherance of a candidate's election from any person in the service of the Government, who belongs to certain specified classes, is deemed to be a corrupt practice. Clause (f) of sub-section (7) includes "revenue officers including village accountants, such as, patwaris, lekhpals, talatis, karnams and the like but excluding other village officers." Issue 2: Classification of a Lambardar under Section 123(7)(f) of the Act The appellant argued that a Lambardar is both a revenue officer and village accountant within the meaning of clause (f) of sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act. The Election Tribunal initially held that a Lambardar was a revenue officer and village accountant in the service of Government. However, the High Court overturned this decision, concluding that Lambardars, although revenue officers, were excluded by the provisions of clause (f). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interpretation, stating that the clause "revenue officers including village accountants" does not encompass Lambardars, who fall under "other village officers" and are thereby excluded. Issue 3: Whether a Lambardar is a person in the service of Government The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to determine whether a Lambardar is a person in the service of Government, as it concluded that Lambardars are excluded from the definition of revenue officers under clause (f) of sub-section (7) of Section 123. The Court emphasized the clear legislative intent to distinguish between village accountants and other village officers, including Lambardars. Issue 4: Corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 The appellant alleged that the respondent engaged Lambardars as counting and polling agents, constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(7). However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of clause (f) led to the conclusion that Lambardars are not within the ambit of revenue officers or village accountants as defined in the Act. Thus, appointing Lambardars did not amount to a corrupt practice under the said provision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Lambardars are excluded from the category of revenue officers and village accountants under Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, engaging Lambardars as counting and polling agents did not constitute a corrupt practice. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of election petitions and dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
