9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is void under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act due to disqualification from subsisting contracts with the State Government. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected in place of the disqualified 1st respondent. Issue 1: Disqualification under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent was disqualified under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to subsisting contracts with the State Government for the sale of arrack and toddy. The 1st respondent had entered into agreements with the Government to sell liquor in retail for the year 1977-78, which were still in effect when he filed his nomination for the election. The 1st respondent argued that he did not engage in any trade or business and only participated in the auctions as an arbitrator to settle disputes among local toddy tappers. He claimed that the contracts were not in the course of his trade or business and did not involve the supply of goods to the Government or the execution of any works undertaken by the Government. The court examined whether the conditions for disqualification under Section 9-A were met, which include: 1. Existence of a contract with the Government. 2. Contract for the supply of goods or execution of works undertaken by the Government. 3. Contract entered in the course of trade or business. 4. Contract subsisting on the date of filing the nomination. The court found that the contracts were subsisting at the time of filing the nomination, but they did not involve the supply of goods to the Government or the execution of any works undertaken by the Government. The contracts were for selling toddy and arrack to the public, not for supplying goods to the Government. The court also noted that the language of Section 9-A is clear and should be interpreted strictly, without extending its scope to cover contracts not explicitly mentioned. Issue 2: Declaration of Petitioner as Elected Since the court concluded that the 1st respondent was not disqualified under Section 9-A, the petitioner's request to be declared elected was not considered. The court emphasized that Section 9-A does not cover contracts for selling liquor to the public, and the 1st respondent's contracts did not fall within the disqualifying provisions of the Act. Conclusion: The election petition was dismissed, and the 1st respondent was not disqualified under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner was not entitled to be declared elected. The court ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000.
|
