BADRIVISHAL PILLIE Vs. J. V. NARSING RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition preferred by the appellant under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), that the election of the respondent was void for the reason that the appellant's nomination was improperly rejected. Seven candidates including the appellant and the respondent filed their nomination papers for election from the Begum Bazar constituency to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. 1st February, 1957, was appointed for the scrutiny of nominations. Both the appellant and the respondent were represented by agents who were advocates at the time of the scrutiny. The agent of the respondent raised an objection to the candidature of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was the managing agent of the Hind Tobacco Company which had a subsisting contract with the Government and as such disqualified as contemplated by Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act. As the controversy turned on the question as to whether the contract was with the Union Government or with the Provincial Government and, as the Returning Officer wanted to be satisfied on this issue, the appellant's agent took time till the next day for the production of the relevant contract. On the adjourned day, some more objections were raised on behalf of the respondent, but the parties are not agreed as to the nature and scope of the objections. The returning officer upholding some of the objections laid on behalf of the respondent rejected the nomination paper of the appellant. Within the time allowed, the other candidates withdrew the nomination, thus leaving only the respondent in the field with the result that lie was declared duly elected without any contest on 4-2-1957.

(2.) It is to challenge this election that the present petition was filed by the appellant complaining against the procedure followed by the Returning Officer permitting the respondent's agent to seek information from the representative of the appellant and adjourning the proceedings to the next day contrary to the provisions of Section 36 of the Act questioning the correctness of the statement in the order of rejection as also the legality thereof.

(3.) The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations in the petitions as to what happened on the 1st and 2nd of February before the Returning Officer and stating that his representative brought to the notice of the Returning Officer that the petitioner was disqualified on the ground that he had a share or interest in several subsisting contracts for the supply of goods within the meaning of Section 7(d) of the Act and that, in fact the appellant made an admission that he, his lather and brother constituted a joint undivided Hindu family owning several businesses and that the income from them went into the common pool for the benefit of all the members. The rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellant traversed the allegation in the written statement that the respondent's representative rained the objection that the firms of which the appellant was a partner had subsisting contracts with the Government. The appellant also contended that it was open to the respondent to raise grounds other than those relied on by the Returning Officer and asserted that no disqualification attached to him.