KARAM SINGH Vs. KAMAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karam Singh, an electorate of Hoshiarpur, has challenged election of Shri Kamal Chaudhary, Member of Parliament, respondent in this election petition, on the allegations that the respondent committed corrupt practices as, at his instance, Shri S. S. Ray, Governor of Punjab, convened a meeting of Congress leaders of district Hoshiarpur through the assistance of Deputy Commissioners of Hoshiarpur and Ropar and thus he obtained and procured his help in furtherance of his election. In the election meeting held on 14/11/1989, Shri S. S. Ray called upon the persons present to support the respondent in the election. It is also alleged that Shri S. S. Ray, while acting as agent of the respondent, also committed corrupt practice in the aforesaid manner. It was further alleged that Shri S. S. Ray and the two Deputy Commissioners were Gazetted Officers. The petition having been contested by the respondent, the following two preliminary issues were framed, which are being disposed of by this order after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties as no evidence was required to be produced on these issues :- (i) Whether the petition does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed on that ground? OPD (ii) Whether office of the Governor is covered under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act and if so to what effect? DPP

(2.) The objection raised in the written statement was that office of the Governor is not in the service of the Government and further the Governor is not a Gazetted Officer and thus any action of the Governor, as is alleged in the election petition, will not amount to corrupt practice as defined, under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act.

(3.) Chapter II of Part VI of the Constitution refers to the office of the Governor. Article 153 provides for a Governor for each State and under Art.154, the executive power of the State is to vest in the Governor. The Governor of the State is to be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal as provided under Article155. The Governor is to hold office during the pleasure of the President as mentioned in Art.156. Article 52 of the Constitution provides for the office of the President of India and under Art.53, the executive power of the Union is to vest in the President and is to be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act defines 'Central Government'. Sub-clause (b) specifically mentions that 'Central Government' shall in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution means the President. Section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act defines 'State Government' and after the commencement of the Constitution in respect of anything done in the State Government in Part 'A' States, the Government would be the Governor. The emoluments, allowances and privileges of the Governor of the State are governed by the provisions of the Governors (Emoluments, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1982. From the perusal of the provisions of the Constitution and the Acts aforesaid, it is abundantly clear that office of the Governor in the State is under the Central Government i.e. the President. The appointment and the tenure of office is under the direct control of the President. The emoluments and other service conditions are governed by an Act of the Parliament. The office is established under the Constitution itself. The holder of that office would be an officer designated as Governor in the Constitution. No manner of doubt is left from the provisions aforesaid to come to a conclusion that Governor is serving under the Central Government i.e. the President. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Guru Cobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal, AIR 1964 SC 254, may be noticed with advantage in this context (at pp. 258-259 of AIR) :-