ANOKH SINGH Vs. SURINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act), Anokh Singh, an elector from the Patti Assembly Constituency, district Amritsar, has called in question the Mid Term election of Surinder Singh Kairon, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). A declaration is sought to the effect that the election of the said Respondent from the aforesaid Constituency held in February, 1969, is void on the solitary ground that the Respondent entered into a contract with the Punjab Government for the construction of the additional Siswan Super -passage in the course of his trade and business which still subsists.

(2.) THE date of filing nomination papers has not been specified in the election petition. The date of polling was February 9, 1969. The result of the election was declared on February 10, 1969. Respondent No. 1, an official Akali Party candidate defeated his nearest rival, Jaswant Singh Kairon (who*is the contesting Respondent's uncle - -the official Congress candidate). Respondent was thereupon declared returned to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Patti Constituency.

(3.) ON the merits of the controversy, the Respondent's plea in brief is that though he was the sole proprietor of the Capital Construction Company, he was not disqualified under Section 9 -A of the Act as no such contract was entered into in the course of Respondent's trade or business as an enlisted contractor with the Punjab Government on the relevant dates and further because the contract, for the construction of the additional Siswan Super -passage, between him and the Government was neither subsisting on the date of nominations nor on the date of scrutiny. He has further emphasised that the work in question was undertaken on mere work orders and not on the basis of any regular contract. While admitting the work orders and the running payments, he has laid particular emphasis on the following two admitted conditions of contract contained in all the work orders in questions: