NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. VENKATARAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The points in this case turn upon the meaning of expression subsisting contract employeed in the proviso to sub-section 6 of Section 12 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act. The format of the case is, the Writ Petitioner was one of the contestants to the elections held on 2-6-1981 for the Gram Panchayat, Annalur village. The last date for filing nominations was 15-5-1981 and the following day i.e., 16-5-1981 was the day fixed for scrutiny. Along with the Writ Petitioner, the 1st respondent and one Seela Nagaiah filed nominations. On the day of scrutiny, ah objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner and Seela Nagaiah that the 1st respondent had a subsisting contract, namely; that in connection with certain road repairs, a contract was entered into between the Block Development Officer of Proddatur Panchayat Samithi and the 1st respondent and the amount of claim, though work was over, was yet pending to a tune of Rs. 7,500/-,. Though, the bill was submitted, the same was not paid and it was still outstanding. Therefore, the 1st respondent incurred the disqualification. The Election Officer accepted the said objection and rejected the nomination paper of the 1st respondent. On an appeal to the Revenue Divisional officer, it resulted in dismissal. Consequently, the election was held and the petitioner herein was declared elected. Thereafter, the Election Petition E.O.P. 18/81 was filed before the Election Tribunal i.e., Principal District Munsif, Prcddatur. Various issues were framed, but eventually, the parties restricted their canvassing regarding the issue namely: Whether there was no subsisting contract- between the 1st respondent herein and the Panchayat samithi on the date when the nomination was filed. Evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in on behalf of both the parties and it was eventually held by the Tribunal that there was no subsisting contract within the meaning of Section 12 (6) of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act and therefore, the election was set aside. In consequence, a fresh election was directed to be held. Hence, this Writ Petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ella Reddy is that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in adjudicating the case by taking the inspiration from the provisions enacted in Section 9 (A) and the explanation thereof, of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 which is not in pari-materia with the proviso to Section 12 (6) of the Gram Panchayat Act and therefore, erred in its decision. The counter contention of Mr. R. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that though the contract was entered into, but the same is illegal inasmuch as it was not competent for the Block Development Officer to enter into contract by nomination in favour of the 1st respondent as it would be competent for the Block Development Officer, if the value of the contract is only Rs. 1,000/- or less. Even the Superintending Engineer is not competent to ratify wherein the matter was sent by the Block Development Officer for the same, inasmuch as his competence is co-extensive with that of the B.D.O. The contract being Rs. 5,000/- and more, the same being illegal contract, it could not be termed as legally subsisting one. Alternatively, it is also contended that the claim under the very contract itself was put an end to, after the 1st respondent himself addressing a letter Ex. A-11 dated 9-5-1981 long before the filing of the nomination i.e., 15-5-1981 and therefore, there was no subsisting contract as such. Even otherwise, the 1st respondent having terminated on 16-5-1981 itself and the same being acknowledged by the Block Development Officer, it is quite manifest that the contract was no more in subsistence. Therefore, the bar of disqualification gets removed. Now a look at the statutory provisions:

(2.) Section 7 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 'Unamended, reads:

(3.) Yet, another contention is that it was illagal for the Block Development Officer to have nominated the 1st respondent as nominee as for the purpose of contract undertaken and since according to rules, the Blpck Development Officer had no right to nominate the contract amount being more than Rs.1,000/- it becomes an unenforceable one and there fore, such contract cannot be taken cognizance of, for the purpose of nomination paper. I apprehend this contention is equally not well founded, firstly, this was not the case at all even on the date of nomination itself and secondly, this is an after thought to suit the size of the ease at it were. Thirdly, it is highly debatable as to what extent the 1st respondent will be entitled to enforce even such contract however I would refrain from adjudicating on this aspect of the matter as it is quite unnecessary for the purpose of this Writ Petition as it may otherwise adversely affect one party or the other. Be that as it may, this contention is rejected as devoid of merit and substance. In the result, the order under Writ Petition is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, no order as to costs. KNRWP allowed.