KANTILAL DHANJI NAROLA Vs. COLLECTOR AMRELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Miss Rekha Doshit Assistant Government Pleader appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. With consent of the learned Advocates this petition has been taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) By a notification dated 10-5-1990 respondent No. 1 who is the District Collector Amreli - the Election Authority has notified the date of election of Damnagar Nagar Panchayat and fixed dates for various stages of election. The petitioner who is eligible and qualified for being elected as a member of the Nagar Panchayat submitted four nomination forms for four different wards before the appointed day. The scrutiny of nominations took place on 25-5-1990. The petitioners nominations were objected to by one Sureshbhai Jagannath Mehta on the ground test the petitioner had a share or interest in the contract with the Panchayat and thus he is not qualified to be a member of the Panchayat. It is the petitioners allegation that the Returning Officer without holding a proper inquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by his separate orders dated 25-5-1990 rejected his nomination papers under Sec. 23(g) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The petitioner there- after filed four appeals to the Election Authority against the orders of the Returning Officer. The Election Authority by its common order dated 30-5-1990 dismissed the appeals. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition challenging the orders passed by the Returning Officer and the Election Authority.

(3.) The question which arises for determination is whether there was any subsisting contract between the petitioner and the Nagar Panchayat on the day on which the petitioner had filed his nomination papers for contesting the election of the Panchayat. The petitioner tad filed his nomination papers on 24-5-1990. He had earlier on 7-4-1979 entered into a contract with the Panchayat to construct six cabins. The said work was to be completed within 120 days. The petitioner constructted three cabins but the work done by him was not found to be satisfactory and therefore. on 7-8-1979 the Panchayat had informed him not to carry out further construction work. The Panchayat took possession of the three cabins which were already constructed by the petitioner As against the claim of Rs 21 0 for constructing the said three cabins the petitioner was paid Rs. 15 0 After about five years the Panchayat gave notice dated 22-5-1984 to the petitioner calling upon him to hand over possession of the throe cabins and to refund the excess amount paid to him The Panchayat then Filed Regular Civil Suit No 24 of 1984 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) for obtaining the same reliefs The Civil Court hold that the Panchayat has failed to prove that the work: done by the petitioner was sub- standard The Civil Court also did not believe the Panchayats case that possession of three cabins was not handed over to it by the petitioner in 1979 The Civil Court therefore dismissed the suit on 28 Neither the petitioner nor the Panchayat had taken any action thereafter against each other in respect of that contract on these facts and circumstances it is now required to be decided whether the contract entered into between the petitioner and the Panchayat in the year 1979 can be said to be subsisting even now