GNARAYANA GOWDA Vs. B LNARAYANASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was one of the two candidates for the general seal for election to the Mysore Legislative assembly from the Malabagal constituency, respondent 1 being the other candidate for the general seat and the remaining respondents being candidates for the reserved seat in the constituency which was a double member one. The last date for filing nomination papers was 29-1-1957, the latest time being 3 P.M. Respondent 1 filed two nomination papers marked as Exhibits P-14 and P-15 on 28-1-1957 and 29-1-1957 respectively. The date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations was 1-2-1957. The appellant objected to respondent 1's nomination on the ground that the latter was a recognized engineering contractor and was executing a number of works under various contracts with the State Public Works Department, and that those contracts were subsisting both on the 28th and on the 29th January 1957. He also urged that the certificate of release obtained by respondent 1 from its having been obtained at 4. P. M. on that day, did not show that the mutual obligations between Government and the respondent had been settled. It was further urged that the works taken up by respondent 1 had not been completed when he purported to have been released from the contracts, and that respondent 1's brother Srinivasalu who was alleged to have entered into an agreement with the Public Works Department to take over the remaining part of the works was only a name-lender for respondent 1 who still continue to be interested in the contracts. On the day of scrutiny, i.e., on 1-2-1957, the Returning Officer postponed the proceedings to the next date at the request of respondent 1 to enable him to produce some documents. On 2-2-1957 he completed the summary enquiry, and rejected the nomination paper filed on 28-1-1957 on the ground that respondent 1 had not ceased to be a contractor on that date. As regards Exhibit P. 15, the nomination paper filed on the next day, he held that the contracts had ended before that nomination paper was presented, and accepted respondent 1's nomination. In the election held respondents 1 and 2 were declared to be the successful candidates as respondent 1 ahd secured the largest number of votes for the general seat and respondent 2 for the reserved seat. he appellant thereupon filed an election petition under Ss. 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act challenging respondent 1's election on the ground that he was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Assembly under S. 7(d) of the Act since he had subsisting contracts with Government both at the time of his nomination and on the date of election. The appellant also claimed a declaration that he himself was elected to the general seat, since, if respondent 1's nomination had been rejected as it ought to have been, the appellant having secured the next largest number of votes would have been the successful candidate.

(2.) The Election Tribunal which enquired into the petition held that at the time of the presentation of the second nomination paper respondent 1 had ceased to hold any contract, that respondent 1's brother Srinivasalu, who had entered into an agreement with the P.W.D. Authorities to complete the remaining part of the work under the two contracts in question, was not a name-lender for respondent 1, and that the rejection of the first nomination paper of respondent 1 did no entail the rejection of the nomination. The last finding was with reference to the contention urged that under S. 36(3) of the Representation of the People Act it was only when fresh nomination papers were filed which came under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 36, and not when he fresh nomination paper was directed to cure a defect under clause (a) of S. 36(1), that the candidate could avoid rejection of his nomination. It may also be mentioned that the Tribunal rejected another contention raised by the appellant that the result of the election had been materially affected by the Returning Officer failing to publish the list of the contesting candidates in alphabetical order and in arranging the ballot boxes in the same order.

(3.) In this appeal against the decision of the Tribunal the appellant has urged that the learned Tribunal was in error in all its findings.