LAWS(SC)-1954-5-30

RAVANNA SUBANNA Vs. G S KAGGEER APPA

Decided On May 21, 1954
RAVANNA SUBANNA Appellant
V/S
G.S.KAGGEER APPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court dated the 2nd February 1953, by which the learned Judges reversed, on appeal, an order dated the 10th October 1952 made by the Sub-Judge, Tumkur, sitting as Election Commissioner, in Election Mis. Case No. 1 of 1952-53.

(2.) The material facts lie within a brief compass and are for the most part uncontroverted. There was an election held for the Town Municipal Councillorship of the Gubbi town, in the State of Mysore, in March 1952, and the appellant and the respondent before us were the two rival candidates for the seat. As the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, objection was taken by the respondent to the nomination of the appellant as a candidate, on the ground, that he was holding an office of profit under the Government at that time, as the Chairman of Gubbi Taluk Development Committee, and was hence disqualified for being chosen as a Councillor under section 14 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'The Act'). The objection was overruled and both the candidates went to the poll. As a result of the volting, the appellant was declared elected and there-upon the respondent filed an election petition before the Sub-Judge, Tumjur, who was the Election Commr. constituted under the Act, praying that the election of the appellant might be set aside on the ground of his being a disqualified candidate within the meaning of section 14(1)(A)(a)(iii) of the Act. There was a further prayer that the respondent being the only other rival candidate should be declared duly elected at the election held in March 1952.

(3.) The Sub-Judge, by his order dated the 10th October 1952, dismissed the petition, holding 'inter alia', that the appellant, who as non-official Chairman of the Taluk Development Committee was entitled to draw only a small fee of Rs. 6 per sitting, could not be said to hold an office of profit under the Government as contemplated by section 14 of the Act.