GURU GOBINDA BASU Vs. SANKARI PROSAD GHOSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a certificate for leave to appeal under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution of India against the judgment of a division bench of this court in appeal from Original Decree No. 424 of 1962.

(2.) The matter arises out of a Parliamentary election held in February last. The petitioner was a candidate for a Parliamentary seat from 34 Burdwan Parliamentary constituency in West Bengal and was declared to have been elected as a member as a result of the election having polled the largest number of votes. The respondents 1 and 2 before us presented an election petition No. 111 of 1962 before the Election Commission challenging the election of the petitioner as void on several grounds. The respondent No. 3 before us is the unsuccessful candidate. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner, a partner of the firm of Messrs. G. Basil and Co., held several "offices of profit" under the Government of India and the Government of West Bengal. The complaint is that the firm of Messrs. G. Basu and Co. are auditors appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India with the previous approval of the Central Government which has overall powers of control and management of the Corporation. The said firm are also auditors of Durgapur Projects Limited and Hindustan Steel Limited, two "Government Companies" within the meaning of the expression in the Companies ACT of 1956 the appointment being under the Central Government. The petitioner was also nominated by the Government of West Bengal to be a member of the Board of Directors of the West Bengal Finance Corporation and was in receipt of remuneration and fees as such director.

(3.) The relevant provision of the Constitution is Article 102 which provides, inter alia, that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member ot either House of Parliament, if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government ot any State, other than an office declared by parliament by law not to disqualify its holder, it is not the appellant's case that any of the offices held by him have been declared by Parliament not to disqualify the holder thereof from being chosen as a member of either House. Both me trial Court i.e. the election tribunal, and a division bench of this Court in appeal, have held that the offices held by the appellant are offices of profit under the Government of India and the Government of the State of West Bengal. No certificate was asked for from the division Bench of this Court that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and the only question before us is whether we can grant a certificate under Article 133(1) (c) that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court as involving a substantial question of law.