Holders of offices of profit under the Government are disqualified from being chosen as members of a legislative assembly under Art. 191 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
OFFICE OF PROFIT - PATELS AND SHANBHOGS - MYSORE VILLAGE OFFICES ACT, 1908 - WHETHER HOLDERS OF OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 11 - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: HOLDERS OF OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING CHOSEN AS MEMBERS OF A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY UNDER ART. 191 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:

Election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly on the ground that the nomination papers of three other candidates, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa, and Guru Rao, were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer as they held offices of profit under the Mysore government and were therefore disqualified from membership of the Assembly under Art. 191 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the appeal and held that the offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were not offices under the Government. The election of the appellant was thereupon declared void.
Issues: Whether Patels and Shanbhogs were holders of offices of profit under the Government and were therefore disqualified from being chosen as members of a legislative assembly under Art. 191 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Patels and Shanbhogs were holders of offices of profit under the Government based on the following reasons: 1. Appointment to the office is made by the Government, even though in certain cases the Government may have no option but to appoint the heir of the last holder. 2. The office is held by reason of such appointment only and not simply because of a hereditary right to it. 3. The officers work under the control and supervision of the Government. 4. Their remuneration is paid by the Government out of Government funds and assets. 5. They are removable by the Government. 6. There is no one else under whom their offices could be held.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and those of the Election Tribunal were restored. The election petition was dismissed.

Judgment

A. K. SARKAR, J. : The question for decision in this appeal is whether certain persons were holders of offices of profit under the Government and were therefore disqualified under Art. 191 of the Constitution, for being chosen as members of a legislative assembly. It arises out of a petition presented under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void.

2. The election with which the case is concerned, was held on 8th March 1957 for choosing members for the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. One of the constituencies for the purposes of election to that Assembly was known as Harihar. The nomination papers filed by three persons, namely, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao for election from that constituency were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the first two of them were Patels and the third a Shanbhog of certain villages in Mysore and as such they were all holders of offices of profit under the Mysore government and consequently disqualified from membership of the Assembly under Art. 191. As a result of this rejection two candidates were left to contest the election and the appellant, who was one of them, was declared elected as he obtained the larger number of votes at the poll. Six electors of the Harihar constituency then filed the election petition for a declaration under S. 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that the election of the appellant was void on the ground that the nomination papers of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao had been improperly rejected. If the rejection was improper the petition would have to be allowed. The appellant was the sole respondent to that petition. It was alleged in the petition that Patels and Shanbhogs were hereditary village officers and therefore were not holders of profit under the Government. It was said that they were really representatives of the village community, and only acted as agents of that community or as liaisons between it and the Government, and that in any event they were not holders of offices of profit because the amount of money receivable by them in respect of their offices was very small and out of all proportions to the work done by them. The petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal by its order, dated 10th September 1957. It held that the conditions of service of Patels and Shanbhogs were regulated by the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, and that the mere fact that offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were hereditary was not by itself sufficient to establish that they were not offices under the Government. It also held that Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao were in receipt of considerable remuneration and were, therefore, holding offices of profit. The six petitioners then appealed to the High Court of Mysore. The High Court by its judgment, dated 26th February 1958, allowed the appeal and held that the offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were not offices under the Government. The election of the appellant was thereupon declared void. It is from this judgment that the present appeal to this Court has been taken with a certificate granted under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. One of the six petitioners being dead, the remaining five are the respondents in this appeal.

3. There is no dispute that Hanumanthappa and Siddappa held the offices of Patels and as remuneration for their services lands had been allotted to them and provision for cash allowances made. Likewise it is not disputed that Guru Rao was a Shanbhog and had cash remuneration provided to him for his services. It is also clear and not challenged that Patels and Shanbhogs have specific duties to perform and are holders of offices. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether they are holders of offices under the Mysore Government.

4. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that Patels and Shanbhogs are not holders of offices under the Government. He s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document