ATAMDAS Vs. SURYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the last general elections the appellant ATam Das was elected to the Lok Sabha from the Morena Reserved Constituency No. 1. The respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the latter was not qualified to stand as a candidate for election in that he had a subsisting contract for execution of works undertaken by him in the course of his business as a building contractor with the Central Government on the date on which the nomination paper was filed and when he was declared elected. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the contention and set aside the election.

(2.) THE appellant is a building contractor and his name stood entered in the list of approved contractors of the Central Government. On February 25, 1954 the appellant entered into a contract for "repairing work of Ratnawali Burj, Raisen Fort" with the Department of Archaeology, Government of India, at Bhopal. THE total value of the contract was Its. 37,012. THE appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,850 as security deposit for due performance of the contract. THE work under the contract was not completed within the period of three months stipulated for completion. For the work done by the appellant till March 31, 1956 he was paid Rs. 27,656-9-0. THE record is silent as to whether any work was done by the appellant in pursuance of the contract after March 31, 1956. In the petition it was averred in paragraph 9 that the contract of the appellant with the Central Government dated February 25, 1954

(3.) THE appellant wrote a letter to the Superintendent, Archaeological Department on August 27, 1959 in reply to a letter dated August 11, 1959 that a part of the work entrusted to him had been done departmentally and that so far as the defects pointed out in the work done by him were concerned the work was done in the presence of and according to the instructions given to him by the person authorised by the Department and that a contractor who worked according to instructions would be in a position of difficulty when he was told afterwards that the work was defective when it was in truth "due to the defects of official". He then stated:-