DAYANANAD RAYU MANDREKAR Vs. CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, in these two appeals, challenge the judgment in the Election Petition nos. 1 and 2 of 2002. In both these cases a common questions of law had arisen and, therefore, we heard the matter together and are disposing these appeals by way of a common order. The appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was elected to the Legislative Assembly of State of Goa from Siolim constitutency in the election held on 30.5.2002, whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was elected from Vasco-da-gama Assembly constitutency of the State Legislature. The election petitions were preferred by two unsuccessful candidates in the elections alleging that these two appellants were holding 'office of profit' at the time when they contested the elections and, therefore, they were ineligible to be elected to the legislature. At the time of filing their nominations, the appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was the Chairman of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board of the State of Goa, whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance & Development Corporation Ltd. of the State of Goa. The appellants in these two cases contended before the High Court that they were not holding an 'office of profit' and were not receiving any salary or allowances for the said post they held and by virtue of the provision contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] Act, 1982 (for short 'the 1982 Act'), the disqualification, if any, was removed especially by clause (9) of the Schedule. The pleas set-up by the appellants were rejected and the High Court held that these appellants were holding the 'office of profit' and that they were not entitled to contest the election as they were disqualified and the election petitions were allowed and elections of appellants were set aside.

(2.) We have heard the counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents.

(3.) It is not disputed that the appellants were holding the office as alleged in the election petition, but contended that they were not receiving any salary or allowances and were only receiving some perquisites. It is not disputed that these two appellants, by virtue of their office, enjoyed the privilege of a chauffeur driven car with unrestricted use of petrol. The appellants were also given the services of a PA, a clerk and a Peon and they were provided with a residential telephone with unrestricted number of calls. They were also provided with a mobile telephone and newspapers were supplied at their residences and the expenses were paid from the funds of the office.