SATYA DEV BUSHERI Vs. PADAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1954. That was an appeal against an order of the Election Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh (Simla), dismissing a petition to set aside the election of the respondent to the Legislative Assembly, Himachal Pradesh, from the Rohru Constituency. Two points were raised at the hearing of the appeal before us:One was that the respondent was disqualified for election to the Assembly under Section 17 of Act No. 49 of 1951 read with Section 7(d) of Act No. 43 of 1951 by reason of the fact that he was interested in contracts for the supply of Ayurvedic medicines to the Himachal Pradesh Government, and the other, that he had appointed Government servants as polling agents, and had thereby contravened Section 123(8) of Act No. 43 of 1951.

(2.) On the first question, we held that on a true construction of section 17, what would be a disqualification for election to either House of Parliament under Article 102 would, under that section, be a disqualification for election to the Legislatures of Part C States, and that the disqualification under section 7(d) of Act No. 43 of 1951 would accordingly be a disqualification under section 17 of Act No. 49 of 1951. A further contention was then raised on behalf of the respondent that even if section 7(d) were to be imported into section 17, that would not disqualify him, because under that section, the disqualification must be to being elected to either House of Parliament, and that under Sections 7 and 9 of Act No. 43 of 1951. a contract to operate as a disqualification to election to either House of Parliament, must be with the Central Government, whereas the contracts of the respondent were with the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The answer of the petitioner to this contention was that under Article 239 the administration of Part C States was vested in the President acting through the Chief Commissioner or the Lieutenant-Governor, and that the contracts of the respondent with the Chief Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, must be held to be contracts with the Central Government. We, however, disagreed with this contention, and held that Article 239 had not the effect of merging States with the Central Government, and converting contracts with the States into those with the Central Government.

(3.) In this application, Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner invites our attention to the definition of "Central Government" in Section 3(8)(b)(ii) of the General Clauses Act. It is as follows: