Mahendra Kumar vs Sm. Vidyavati And Ors.

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 18 October, 1954

Coram: B.K. Mukherjea, Venkatarama Ayyar, J.

The appeal was filed under special leave against the decision of the Election Tribunal at Nowgong, which had set aside the election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly of Vindhya Pradesh from the Laundi constituency. The Tribunal had based its decision on two grounds. First, it held that the appellant had employed government servants as polling agents, thereby committing a major corrupt practice under Section 123(8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951). Second, it concluded that, at the material time, the appellant had contracts with the Vindhya Pradesh Government for printing electoral rolls, which rendered him disqualified under Section 17 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 49 of 1951). The judgment was authored by Justice Venkatarama Ayyar and delivered by Justice B.K. Mukherjea. Regarding the first ground, the Court referred to its earlier rulings in Satya Dev Busheri v. Padam Dev (A) and Satya Dev Busheri v. Padam Dev (B), which held that the mere appointment of a government servant as a polling agent did not automatically fall within the mischief contemplated by Section 123(8). Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Chatterjee, cited the testimony of PW-5, suggesting that the polling agent had also performed canvassing work for the appellant. Had that evidence been accepted, it would have demonstrated a clear violation of Section 123(8). However, the Tribunal had made no finding on the alleged canvassing activity and had based its decision solely on the appointment of government servants as polling agents. In line with the precedents cited, the Court held that no contravention of Section 123(8) had occurred.

The second ground concerned the appellant’s contractual relationship with the State for the printing of electoral rolls. The Court again relied on its prior decisions, which established that contracts with the Chief Commissioner in Part C States would constitute a disqualification for election to State legislatures under Section 17 of Act 49 of 1951, read with Section 7(d) of Act 43 of 1951. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Veda Vyas, argued that the contract for printing electoral rolls should be considered a contract with the Election Commission rather than with the State or Union government. He supported this contention by invoking Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls in the Election Commission, and provides that the President, Governor or Rajpramukh may be called upon to make staff available to the Commission upon request. The Court observed that preparation of electoral rolls is distinct from the act of printing them, and that the constitutional provisions do not compel the Election Commission itself to enter into printing contracts. The Tribunal’s finding, supported by Exhibit A-4—a letter from the appellant to the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner—demonstrated that it was the Vindhya Pradesh Government that negotiated the contract terms and made the corresponding payments. Accepting this finding, the Court concluded that the appellant indeed held contracts with the State government at the relevant dates, rendering him disqualified under Section 17. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision to set aside the election and dismissed the appeal without awarding costs.

In this case the Court noted that the responsibility for printing the electoral rolls rested with the Government of Vindhya Pradesh. The Court relied on Exhibit A-4, which is a copy of a letter addressed by the appellant to the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh. That letter plainly shows that the Vindhya Pradesh Government negotiated the terms of the printing contract and also made the payments required under that contract. After examining the material, the Court accepted the finding of the Election Tribunal that, on the relevant dates, the appellant was a party to contracts concluded with the Vindhya Pradesh Government. Because the appellant held such contracts, the Court held that he fell within the operation of Section 17, which disqualifies a person who contracts with a State Government for the printing of electoral rolls from being chosen to the Legislative Assembly. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order that set aside the appellant’s election, dismissed the appeal, and directed that no order as to costs be made, meaning that each party would bear its own costs.