BHAIRONLAL Vs. DOONGARSIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Bhaironlal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the people Act, (No. 43 of 1951) which will hereinafter be referred as the Act, against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 31-1-1958.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that in the General Ejections, which were held in 1957 for membership of the Rajasthan Assembfy, one of the constituencies, namely, Jamua Ramgarh, was a double member constituency. For the general seat there were three contesting candidates, i. e. , Bhaironlal (appellant), Doongarsidas (respondent No, 1) and one Fateh Singh. Respondent No. 1 got the maximum number of votes and so he was declared elected. The appellant and Fateh Singh were defeated. Fateh Singh is not a party to this appeal. For the reserved seat, there were only two candidates and respondent No. 2 ramlal defeated his rival Chhaganlal. The appellant challenged the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 only. In the petition which was filed by him he had raised two objections. The first objection was that the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 (Doongarsidas) was wrongly accepted since he was holding office of profit under the Government of Rajasthan as a "meena Bara Gaon". His next contention was that the nomination paper of one Shri Narain was wrongly rejected. The second objection was abandoned by the petitioner at the time of final arguments before the Election Tribunal. It has not been raised in the memorandum of appeal and therefore this Court is not concerned with it. The only objection which was pressed by the appellant before the election tribunal was that respondent No. 1 was holding office of profit under the Government of rajasthan. It was stated by the petitioner that as a "meena Bara Gaon" respondent No. 1 had to render service, as a (Chowkidar) guard wherever he was posted and if he absented himself from duty, he was liable to be fined. It was further averred that instead of being paid for the above service in cash, the respondent No. 1 was given land and he enjoyed its income by way of salary (Tankha ). According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 had got his name entered in the state records in place of his father after his death for rendering services to the government, that his appointment and dismissal were within the competence of the Government and so he was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE reply of respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that he was holding 50 bighas of land in Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh and that it was part of the State grant given by the rulers of Amer to his ancestors and others about 400 years ago. According to him, it was a State grant within the meaning of the provisions of the jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, that it was subject to mutation on the death of the last holder and thus although he was a tenure holder, he was not holding any particular office. It was also stated by him that on his father's death in 1946, mutation was effected in his name as required by the Matmi Rules referred above. It was asserted by him that the grant in his favour as also of other Meenas Bara Gaon was in the nature of Jagir and they were allowed to enjoy rents from the tenants and in lieu of the payment of revenue in cash to the ruler they were required to do some personal Bhaironlal vs. Doongarsidas and Anr. (23. 12. 1958 -RAJHC) Page 3 of 9 garsidas and Anr. (23. 12. 1958 -RAJHC) Page 3 of 9 service. In case of their failure to render the service or to give a substitute, they had to pay annas 2 per day as 'tafawat'.