1999 Supreme(SC) 1019

1999(8) Supreme 169
Supreme Court of India
(From Orissa High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Somnath Rath -Appellant
versus
Bikram K. Arukh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1999
Decided on 14-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Balakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Debasis Mishra, Bhubnesh Singh, D.K. Thukar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : J.R. Das, K.K. Mahalik & K.N. Tripathy, Advo­cates.

Important Point
1. A person holding license under Public Distribution System does not suffer any disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of People Act.
2. The Expression ‘works’ as used in Section 9A of the Representation of People Act would not include ‘schemes’ of the type of Public Dis­tribution System.
3. Improper rejection of nomination paper itself would be ground to invalidate election and in such a case further enquiry as to whether result of an election has been materially affected insofar as the returned candidate would be unwarranted.

Headnote:(i) Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 9A-Disqualification -Rejection of nomination paper on ground candi­date was public Distribution System licensee-Not justified-Licensee under PDS does not suffer from any disqualification under Section 9A-Expression ‘works’ would not include ‘schemes’ of the type of PDS.

       Held : We find ourselves unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that in Section 9A of the Act, the ex­pression ‘works’ would also include ‘schemes’ of the type of Public Distribution System. (Para 13)

       From the pleadings of the parties and particularly averments contained in para 10 of the election petition, it is obvious that the respondent No. 7-Shri Panchanan Das did not have any subsisting contract in the course of his trade or business with the Appropriate Government either for the supply of goods to the Government or for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government. He was a mere licansee under the Public Distribution System. Such a person does not suffer any disqualification for being chosen as a Member of the Legis­lative Assembly under Section 9A of the Act. (Para 14)

       (ii) Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 100 r/w Section 9A - Void election-Election petition on ground nomination paper was improperly rejected-Per­son whose nomination paper was rejected did not file election petition-High Court held that nomination paper was improperly rejected on ground of disqualification since candidate who was licensee of PDS did not suffer disqualification under Section 9A-High Court, however, holding that election of returned candidate would not have materially affected in view of statement of person whose nomination paper was rejected that his presence in field would have hardly made any difference, dismissed election petition-View of High Court erroneous and unsustainable-Improper rejec­tion itself ground to declare election as void-No enquiry as to material effect unwarranted-Elec­tion declared as void.

       Held : The High Court having found and, in our opinion, rightly that the ground on which the Returning Officer had rejected the nomination paper of respondent No. 7, viz., that he was a dealer under the Public Distribution System did not disqualify him from contesting the elec­tion, ought not to have proceeded any further because it was essen­tially a case where the rejection of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer, insofar as respondent No. 7- Shri Panchanan Das is concerned, was improper because respondent No. 7 was not disqualified in terms of Section 9A of the Act. The improper rejection of a nomina­tion paper by itself and without anything more is a ground under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act to declare the election void. No enquiry as to “material effect” on account of the rejection of the nomination paper is required to be made under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act. The enquiry whether the result of an election has been materially affected insofar as the Returned Candidate is concerned is required in the cases covered by Section 100(1)(d) of the Act. (Para 9)

       The improper rejection of the nomination paper by itself being sufficient to invalidate the election, the High Court under the cir­cumstances fell in error in dismissing the election petition and not invalidating the election of the Returned Candidate on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper of respondent No. 7 - Shri Panchanan Das. Consequently the election of the returned candidate is set aside u/s 100(1)(c). (Paras 16 & 17)

       (iii) Words & Phrases-‘Word’, as occurring in Section 9A-Mean­ing of.