C RANGA RAO Vs. K SRINIVASASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks the removal on certiorari of the Order of the District Judge, Nalgonda, passed under section 21 (1) of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956, directing the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts material for the purpose of this enquiry lie in a small compass. Elections to the Suryapet Municipality were directed to be held in April, 1961, according to the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act. For the purpose of these elections, Suryapet has been divided into various constituencies. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 filed their nominations before the prescribed date for Ward No. 3. At the time of the scrutiny of the nominations, the first respondent raised an objection that the petitioner being an Asaldar Patwari of Vallabhapur Village, Suryapet Taluk, Nalgonda district, and getting a scale from the Government, was disqualified under section 27 (1) (c) of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act. This objection did not prevail with the Returning Officer, respondent No. 3, as in his opinion the petitioner was not the Karjugar Patwari and that the present Karjugar Patwari of the village was not the nominee of the Asaldar. Aggrieved by this ruling of the Returning Officer, respondent 1 went in appeal before the District Judge, Nalgonda, contending that the disqualification prescribed by section 27 (1) (c) of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act attached to the petitioner notwithstanding that a gumastha appointed by the Government was actually discharging the functions of of the Patwari. This contention prevailed with the District Judge and he reversed the determination of the Returning Officer. It is to quash the order of the District Judge that the present petition is presented.

(3.) The main point raised by Sri Ekbote in support of this petition is that the petitioner is not disqualified from contesting the election as the functions of a Patwari are actually being performed by a nominee of the Government, he drawing only 4 scale from the Government and so he is not holding an office of profit within the sweep of section 37 (1) (c) of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act read in the light of the Explanation to section 17 of the Hyderabad Gram Panchayats Act, 1956. The view pressed upon us by the learned counsel is that a person by reason only of his holding the office of Patwari does not incur a disqualification unless either he himself or through his nominee performs the services connected with that office according to the Explanations inserted in section 17 of the Hyderabad Gram Panchayats Act by the Hyderabad Gram Panchayats (Andhra Pradesh) Amendment Act, 1960.