Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : This appeal by special leave arises from the election petition filed by respondent 1 (No. 353 of 1957) in which he claimed a declaration that the election of the appellant as a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly Manner Constituency should be declared to be void. In the last General Election for the said constituency which was held in February-March 1957 there were three candidates, the appellant, respondent 1 and respondent 2. The last date for filing nomination papers at the said election was January 29, 1957 the said papers were scrutinised on February 1, 1957. Respondent 1 had challenged the validity of the appellants nomination paper at the said scrutiny but the returning officer had overruled the objection raised by respondent 1 and had accepted the nomination paper of the appellant along with those of the two other candidates. After the counting of votes was done on 3-8-1957, the appellant was declared duly elected at the election inasmuch as he had got 9,826 votes while respondents 1 and 2 had got 7,526 and 49 votes respectively. Thereupon respondent 1 filed his election petition under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. In his petition respondent 1 challenged the election of the appellant on several grounds all of which were controverted by the appellant. On the allegations of the parties the tribunal had framed several issues and parties had led evidence on them. At the stage of arguments, however, only a few issues were pressed by respondent 1 and all of them were found against him and in favour of the appellant. In the result the tribunal dismissed the election petition on November 30, 1957.

3. Against the said decision of the tribunal respondent 1 preferred an appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Patna; and in his appeal he pressed only issue No. 1. This issue was whether the nomination of the appellant was hit by the provision of S. 7 (d) of the Act and as such whether the said nomination had been improperly accepted. On this issue the tribunal had found in favour of the appellant but the High Court reversed the said finding and accepted the plea of respondent 1. As a result of this finding the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 1 and declared on January 8, 1959 that the election of the appellant was void under S. 100 (1) (a) of the Act.

4. The validity of the appellants nomination has been challenged under S. 7 (d) of the Act on the ground that at the date of the nomination he had an interest in a contract for the execution of works undertaken by the Bihar Government. There is no doubt that if a person is interested in a contract for the execution of any work undertaken by the appropriate Government he is disqualified for membership of the State Legislature in question. The appellant, however, denied that the disqualification imposed by S. 7 (d) could be invoked against him. His case was that the contracts in question had not been undertaken by the Bihar Government but they had been undertaken by the Central Government; and he also urged that he had not taken the said contracts individually in his personal capacity, but as the Mukhiya of the Jeorakhan Tola Gram Panchayat. On both these issues the Election Tribunal and the High Court have differed; and it is the said two issues that arise for our decision in the present appeal. It is clear that if the appellant succeeds in showing that he had entered into the impugned contracts not individually but on behalf of the Panchayat of which be was the Mukhiya it would be unnecessary to consider whether the works covered by the said contracts had been undertaken by the Government of Bihar. Let us therefore first consider that point.

5. The impugned contracts are five in number. They were for the execution of works under local development works programme envisaged under the Second Five Year Plan formulated by the Government of India. These contracts are evidenced by five