CHENNUPATI RAMAKOTAYYA Vs. MYHENI LAKSHMANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question we are called upon to answer in this enquiry is whether a contract entered into with the Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for certain purposes is tantamount to a contract with the Government of Andhra Pradesh within the meaning of section 7 (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The facts leading up to this appeal lie in a short compass and may be stated thus. In the last General Elections, the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 sought election to the Legislative Assembly of the Andhra Pradesh State from the Kankipad constituency of Krishna district. Having secured the largest number of votes, the appellant was declared elected to the Legislative Assembly.

(2.) QUESTIONING the validity of his election, the first respondent filed an election petition under section 80, the chief ground of attack being that the appellant had incurred a disqualification under section 7 (d) by reason of the firm, of which he is a partner, having entered into a contract with the abovementioned Corporation for raising iron ore from the mines and for transporting the same by road or canal and for stevedoring the said mineral. There are also other allegations in the election petition but we are unconcerned with them, as the Election Tribunal held that they were not established and that conclusion is not canvassed before us. The election petition was resisted by the appellant on the plea that the contract in question did not offer any obstacle in the way of his standing for election to the assembly, as it did not fall within the mischief of section 7 (d ). The Election Tribunal agreed with the contention of the first respondent that the contract between the appellant and the Corporation offended against clause (d)of section 7 and held that consequently the appellant's election was void. It is this view of the Tribunal that is impugned before us.

(3.) BEFORE we refer to the statutory provisions having a bearing on this enquiry, we have to refer to the circumstances in which the appellant is said to have incurred the disqualification. The Corporation was brought into existence by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to give effect to its policy of exploiting the mines in public sector in February, 1961, when it was registered as a private limited company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. Immediately thereafter, it applied to the appropriate Government in accordance with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, for a mining lease for iron ore in respect of a large tract of land known as Gandrayi area of Krishna district. The lease was sanctioned by the State Government under g. O. Ms. 1608 dated and November, 1961. Subsequently, an indenture was made between the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the State Government and the corporation on 5th December, 1961 by and under which the lease was granted to the Corporation subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. Between the date of the G. O. mentioned above and the instrument, dated 5th december, 1961, i. e. , on 29th November, 1962, a firm known as K. R. B. S. Mining corporation, Vijayawada, of which the appellant is a partner, entered into a contract with the Corporation which, according to the respondents, has imposed the disability contemplated by section 7 (d) on the appellant. We will now extract here the provisions of section 7 (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It recites :