GURBAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under S. 116-A of the Representatives of the People Act 1951, a very short point falls for determination. That point is whether the nomination papers of Charan Das one of the candidate for the election in question were improperly rejected.

(2.) THE controversy arises out of election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from barnala constituency held in February, 1962. There were three candidates who went to the polls. Gurbakhshish Singh the successful candidate polled 26, 882 votes and 1, 157. The nomination papers of Charin Dass and Onkar Prashad were rejected. Ranjit Singh voter election petition challenging Gurbakshish Singh's election on the ground that the nomination papers of Charan Dass and Onkar prahad alias Om Prashad had been improperly rejected. , The Returning Officer has at the time of scrutiny rejected these two nomination papers but we are mainly concerned with the ordered on the ground that Charan Das was a Government contractor and had us sitting contracts and was therefore disqualified in law to be member of Legislature. The learned Tribunal came to the could be gathered that charan Das had subsisting with the result that the rejection of his nomination gurbakhshish Singh was accordingly set aside. In Parshad the Tribunal came to the conclusion that they had been rightly rejected.

(3.) ON appeal it has been fairly and frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is not positive evidence on which it can be found that charan Dass had a subsisting contract with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to or for the execution of any works under taken by the government. He has, however, contended that the Returning Officer having found that Charan Dass had a subsisting contract with the Government entailing his disqualification for being chosen as and for being a member of the state legislature there was a very heavy onus case on him in the election petitioners to show by affirmative evidence that he was not so disqualified and unless it is conclusively contract the order of the Returning Officer must be held to be proper and unassailable and the election petitioners must be dismissed.