Judgment

S. K. DAS, Ag. C. J. - This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. No preliminary objection having been taken as to the competency of the certificate, we have heard the appeal on merits.

2. The short facts giving rise to the appeal are these. The appellant before us is Gurugobinda Basu who is a chartered accountant and a partner of the firm of auditors carrying on business under the name and style of G. Basu and Company. The firm acted as the auditor of certain companies and corporations, such as the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Durgapur Projects Ltd. and the Hindustan Steel Ltd., on payment of certain remuneration. The appellant was also a Director of the West Bengal Financial Corporation having been appointed or nominated as such by the State Government of West Bengal. The appointment carried with it the right to receive fees or remuneration as director of the said corporation.

3. In February-March, 1962 the appellant was elected to the House of the People from Constituency No. 34 (Burdwan Parliamentary Constituency) which is a single member constituency. The election was held in February, 1962. There were two candidates, namely, the appellant and respondent No. 3 to this appeal. The appellant was declared elected on March 1, 1962, he having secured 1,55,485 votes as against his rival who secured 1,23,015 votes. This election was challenged by two voters of the said constituency by means of an election petition dated April 10, 1962. The challenge was founded on two grounds : (1) that the appellant was, at the relevant time, the holder of offices of profit both under the Government of India and Government of West Bengal and this disqualified him from standing in the election under Art. 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution ; and (2) that he was guilty of certain corrupt practices which vitiated his election. The second was abandoned at the trail, and we are no longer concerned with it.

4. The Election Tribunal held that the appellant was a holder of offices of profit both under the Government of India and the Government of West Bengal and was therefore disqualified from standing in the election under Art. 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The Election Tribunal accordingly allowed the election petition and declared that the election of the appellant to the House of the People was void. There was an appeal to the High Court under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the appeal, but granted a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

5. The only question before us is whether the appellant was disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of the House of the People under Art. 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The answer to the question depends on whether the appellant held any offices of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State other than such offices as had been declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify their holder. It has not been seriously disputed before us that the office of auditor which the appellant held as partner of the firm of G. Basu and Company was an office of profit. It has not been contended by the appellant before us that the office of profit which he held had been declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify the holder. Therefore the argument before us have proceeded entirely on the question as to true scope and meaning of the expression "under the Government of India or the Government of any State" occurring in cl. (a) of Art. 102 (1) of the Constitution. The contention on behalf of the appellant has been that on a true construction of the aforesaid expression, the appellant cannot be said to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of West Bengal. On behalf of the respondents the contention is that the office of auditor which the appellant holds is an office of profit under the Gove