1958 (12) TMI 51 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Improper acceptance of nomination.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices.
3. Interpretation of "person in the service of the Government" under Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
4. Validity of the High Court's certificate for appeal under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Improper Acceptance of Nomination:
The High Court found that the nomination of respondent No. 3 was improperly accepted as he was disqualified from contesting the election being a Sarbarakar, an office of profit under the State Government of Orissa. However, it held that this improper acceptance did not materially affect the election of the returned candidate under clause (d) of sub-section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
Three grounds were urged before the High Court regarding corrupt practices:
- Bribery: The High Court held that bribery was not established.
- False Statements in Pamphlet: The High Court found that the appellant and his agents had not published false statements in Exhibit 8 regarding respondent No. 1's personal character and conduct.
- Assistance from Sarpanches: The High Court concluded that obtaining assistance from Sarpanches of certain Grama Panchayats constituted a corrupt practice under section 123(7)(f) of the Act. It opined that a Sarpanch, although not a government servant, performed governmental duties and was removable by the Government, thus falling under the definition of "person in the service of the Government."

3. Interpretation of "Person in the Service of the Government":
The Supreme Court analyzed whether a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat under the Orissa Act could be considered a "person in the service of the Government" and belong to the class specified in clause (f) of section 123(7). The Court noted:
- Appointment and Authority: The Sarpanch is elected by the Grama Panchayat, not appointed by the Government, and acts under the authority of the Grama Panchayat.
- Remuneration: The Sarpanch does not receive remuneration from the Government.
- Control and Supervision: Although the Government has powers of control and supervision, these are related to administrative functions, not indicative of a master-servant relationship.
- Revenue Officer or Village Accountant: The Court found no evidence that a Sarpanch is a revenue officer or village accountant, which are essential to fall under section 123(7)(f).

The Court concluded that a Sarpanch is not in the service of the Government and does not belong to the specified class under section 123(7)(f). Therefore, no corrupt practice was established under section 123.

4. Validity of the High Court's Certificate for Appeal:
The High Court granted a certificate for appeal under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, though one judge had doubts about its applicability. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide on this issue, as it would have granted special leave to appeal under Article 136 due to the significant legal question involved.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and dismissed the election petition of respondent No. 1. The key finding was that a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat under the Orissa Act is not a person in the service of the Government and does not belong to the class specified in section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, no corrupt practice was established, and the appellant's election could not be invalidated on this ground.