SATYA PRAKASH Vs. BASHIR AHMED QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from a decision of the Election Tribunal, rajnandgaon, declaring the election of the appellant Satya Prakash to the House of the People from Bilaspur parliamentary Constituency void on the ground that the respondent Bashir Ahmed's nomination had been improperly and illegally rejected.

(2.) THE material facts are not in dispute. The appellant Satya Prakash, the respondent Bashir Ahmed ana three other persons were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Bilaspur Parliamentary Constituency. On 22nd january 1962, the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, one ramashankar Tiwari, who had proposed the appellant, raised the objection that the respondent Bashir Ahmed's nomination was not valid as he was a shareholder in "the Combined Transport Services (Pvt.) Ltd. , Bilaspur," (hereinafter referred to as the Company), which had entered into a contract with the Centra] Government to carry post mail bags and articles on the remuneration mentioned in the contract and was thus disqualified for membership of Parliament under Section 7 (d) of the act. The Returning Officer upheld the objection and rejected the nomination paper of the respondent taking the view that the contract between the Company and the central Government for the carnage of mail bags and postal articles subsisted, that the respondent was a share-homer in the Company and as such had a pecuniary interest in the contract, and that the contract was one which tell under the description of a contract "for the execution of any works undertaken" by the government, mentioned in Section 7 (d) of the Act. The election was held without the respondent, and the appellant was declared duly returned. Thereupon the respondent filed an election petition praying that the election of the appellant may be set aside and declared void on the ground that his, that is of the respondent, nomination had been improperly and illegally rejected.

(3.) THE Election Tribunal after enquiry has held that the rejection of the respondent's nomination paper was illegal and improper. The Tribunal found that the Company was operating bus services on various routes, including Bilaspur-Katghora route; that the respondent was a share-holder of the Company; that there was a contract between the Company and the Central Government with regard to carriage of mail bags and postal articles on Bilaspur-Katghora route; that the said contract was not entered into by the respondent in the course of any trade or business of his; that the contract was not either for the supply of goods to the Government or for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government; and that consequently the respondent was not disqualified for membership of parliament under Section 7 (d) of the Act. Before the Tribunal, it was also urged on behalf of the appellant that by reason of the contract concluded between the company and the Government about the carriage of mail and postal articles the respondent, who was a shareholder in the Company, became a person holding an office of profit under the Government of India and, therefore, he was disqualified tor being chosen as a Member of parliament under Article 102 of the Constitution. The Tribunal rejected this contention saying that it was impossible to hold that the respondent held any office of profit and was disqualified under Article 102 of the constitution. On these findings, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the returning Officer was in error in rejecting the respondent's nomination paper, and accordingly allowed the election petition declaring that the election of the appellant was void.