RANJEET SINGH Vs. HARMOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Ranjeet Singh son of Jagdev Singh resident of village and Post Office Talwandi Rai, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, has filed the present election petition under Part VI of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the election of respondent Harmohinder Singh Pradhan son of S. Kartar Singh, M. L. A. Raikot Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, from Constituency No. 54, i. e. Raikot Assembly Constituency.

(2.) SHRI Ranjeet Singh has staled in the petition that he was a candidate set up by the Sharomani Akali Dal from Constituency No. 54 i. e. Raikot Assembly Constituency in the general elections held on 7th February, 1997, and respondent Shri Harmohinder Singh Pradhan was put up as a candidate by the Indira National Congress and the respondent was declared elected. The polling took place on 7th February, 1997 and the counting took place on 9th February, 1997. The result was declared on 17th February, 1997 and the respondent was declared elected. According to the allegations of the petitioner, the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Under Section 9-A of the Act as on the date of filling of the nomination papers as well as on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, i. e. 20th January, 1997 and 24th January, 1997, respectively, as he had a subsisting contract for the sale of liquor from the Punjab Government, which he obtained in partnership with others by bidding at the auction held for liquor vends for the year 1996-97. He was a partner in the liquor vends for Indian Made Foreign Liquor/country Liquor in partnership with others for Sarma Group No. 1 and Group No. 11 Patran in Patiala District. The respondent was also a partner in liquor vends in Pakhowal and Raikot in District Ludhiana. At the lime of auction of the vends, the respondent was the main bidder. However, he mentioned other partners and he along with other partners held the contract with the State of Punjab for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor/country Liquor for the year 1996-97. The contract with the State Government was subsisting on the date of nomination and on the date of scrutiny and the contract would subsist till 31st March, 1997, under the contract the respondent along with six partners was bound to pay the bid money in instalments to the State of Punjab and as a consequence the respondent along with other partners could operate the liquor vends as mentioned in the bid documents as well as the agreement signed with the State of Punjab/government-the Department of Excise and Taxation.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to respondent Shri Harmohinder Singh Pradhan, who filed written statement and denied the allegations. He also took preliminary objection that the election petition was not maintainable as the same did not disclose the violation of Section 9-A of the Act. According to this Section, a person shall be disqualified, if he has subsisting contract with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government. The election petition did not contain any allegation that the respondent had entered into a contract with the Government either for the supply of goods or for the execution of the works undertaken by the Government and as such, the respondent had not incurred any disqualification as provided in Section 9-A of the Act. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the contract was not at all covered under the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act. The petitioner has wrongly intermixed the whole issue. The contract for the sale of the liquor is, in fact, governed by the Punjab Excise Act 1914, and under the rules framed under that Act from lime to time. The licence for the sale of liquor is granted by way of open auction for one year, i. e. from April 1 to March 31. The license is granted to the highest bidder in the said open auction and he is allowed to sell the liquor in that particular area for one year. As per the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and the Rules framed thereunder, the licensee is to pay the license fee and the excise duty and price of liquor and then, he sells the said liquor to the public. In these circumstances, it is clear that the licence granted by the Excise Department for the sale of liquor, does not come within the ambit of Section 9-A of the Act as the same is neither for the supply of the goods to the Government nor for the execution of works undertaken by the Government. Unless the contract clearly falls within the four corners of Section 9-A of the Act. the Respondent could not be held to be disqualified for being chosen as a member to the State Legislature. On merits also the respondent had denied the allegations of the election petition and his preliminary defence has already been incorporated by me in the above portion of this judgment and I need not reiterate the stand of the respondent which has been taken up by him in the body of the written statement.