NARMADASHANKER MAKANJI RAVAL Vs. NIRANJAN AMBALAL THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Letters Patent Appeals arise respectively out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2166 of 1976 9 of 1977 and 134 of 1977 all of which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Election Tribunal i.e. the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda that was pleased to set aside election of the appellants herein. The dispute concerns the municipal elections for electing the councillors for Baroda Municipal Corporation for Wards Nos. III and V. The nomination papers of one of the respondents in each of the two election petitions in these Wards had come to be rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they had indirect interest in the contract of employment or employment with the Corporation in so far as those candidates had executed surety bonds in respect of the contract of service by some employees of the Corporation. It is no longer in dispute before us that those prospective candidates whose nomination papers had come to be rejected by the Returning Officer had stood sureties for one or the other of the Municipal employees and the said surety bonds were in operation and in vogue at the time the nomination papers had come to be filed by those respective candidates. After the nomination papers were thrown out the election had taken place and the appellants in these Letters Patent Appeals along with some others had come to be declared duly elected. Two Election Petitions had come to be filed. The Election Petition No. 480 of 1975 had come to be filed in respect of election in Ward No. III and Petition No. 481 of 1975 had come to be filed in respect of the election of Ward No. V. Both had come to be filed by the candidates whose nomination papers had come to be rejected by the Returning Officer. After the rejection of the nomination papers of those respondents the election had taken place on 23rd November 1975 and results those come to be announced on 25th November 1975. The present appellants had come to be declared duly elected Thereafter the candidates whose nomination papers had come to be rejected by the Returning Officer had filed two petitions Nos. 480 of 1975 and 481 of 1975 challenging the decisions of the Returning Officer. Their contentions were upheld by the Tribunal and the elections were set aside and fresh elections were therefore imminent. The successful candidates had therefore preferred Special Civil Applications Nos. 2166 of 1976 9 of 1977 and 134 of 1977. The learned Single Judge concurred with the conclusions reached by the Election Tribunal and dismissed those Special Civil Applications. Hence the Letters Patent Appeals.

(2.) In both these cases in respect of the election to Wards Nos. III and V the bonds executed by the respective candidates are almost identical and we propose to reproduce the same with as faithful a translation as possible as follows :

(3.) As said above application of clause (f) to the bond executed by the concerned respondents was not seriously challenged and for good reasons. If any person enters into a contract directly with the Municipal Corporation agreement quoted above is certainly an agreement there is no difficulty in holding that the concerned respondents had directly an interest in the said contract with the Corporation. The controversy however that was raised before us was regarding application of the exception contained in sub- sec. (2). Mr. J. G. Shah the learned Counsel appearing for those respondents has urged that by any stretch of imagination consequence of the above mentioned contract with the Corporation would be payment of money and none other. On behalf of the appellants at one stage it was contended that the term any security for the payment of money only applied only to ascertained or liquidated sum and not to unliquidated or unascertained sum. But we find no reason to limit the operation of the term money to the term liquidated sum of money for want of any valid reasons. It is one of the cardinal principles of inter- pretation that the words should be given their natural meaning and unless the context so requires no word or extra words should be supplied. The moot question therefore is whether the above mentioned agreement which concerns the respondents and which was entered with the Corporation can be said to be an agreement for security of payment of money only or it is something more. Three possible situations can be envisaged in such circumstances; an agreement may be for payment of money only an agreement may be for discharging some other duties and an agreement may be both for payment of money and for discharging some other obligations along with it. As per the terms of clause (ii) in sub-sec. (2) what is sought to be excepted is only one of the three categories and not the other two. Much therefore would depend on the interpretation of the agreement in question.