SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 162

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Abdul Rahiman Khan, Appellant
Versus
Sadasiva Tripathi, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1723 of 1967,
D/- l5-7-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. Goburdhun, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (Miss Uma Mehta, Mr. S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
C.B.AGARWAL, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, S.Baggar, S.K.Bagga, UMA MEHTA

Headnote:

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 116-A and 9-A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 299 and 299 (1) - Election Petition - Nomination Paper was Improperly Rejected - Illegally Deprived of Right - Whether Sub-Divisional Officer did give intimation to contractor – Held, Conduct of appellant clearly suggests that he did not treat contract as cancelled, nor is there any clear evidence to show that authorities had treated contract as cancelled - High Court was, therefore, right in holding that case did not fall within explanation to S. 9-A of Representation of People Act and there was no evidence of determination of contract by mutual agreement - Undoubtedly for breach of terms of a contract not executed in manner prescribed by Article 299 (1) a suit for relief in a civil court will not lie, but on that account it cannot be said that a contract for execution of works undertaken by a person though not executed in manner prescribed by Article 299, but which is treated by both parties thereto as binding will not operate as a disqualification - As already pointed out, appellant had commenced execution of work but had not completed it - Payment for work done was not made to appellant - Contract was not determined by mutual agreement nor was it abandoned - Contract resulting from acceptance of his tender though not enforceable by suit against State Government, because it did not comply with Article 299, must still be regarded as disqualifying appellant under Representation of People Act from standing as a candidate for election to State Legislature - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement

SHAH, J. : At the last general elections, the respondent was declared elected to the Legislative Assembly of Orissa from the Nowrangpur General Constituency. The appellant filed an election petition before the High Court of Orissa for an order setting aside the election of the respondent, on the ground that the appellant s nomination paper was improperly rejected and he was illegally deprived of his right to canted the election. The High Court rejected the petition. The appellant has appealed to this Court under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. It is common ground that the appellant was carrying on the business of a building contractor and that in pursuance of a notification issued by the Government of Orissa he had submitted tenders for construction of buildings of the Rental Housing Scheme at the rates specified therein. Those tenders were accepted and the appellant had carried out a part of the construction work but had thereafter stopped the work because he suffered serious injuries which necessitated his detention in a public hospital. The appellant claimed that at his request the contract was cancelled, and on that account at the date of the filing of his nomination there was, between him and the State of Orissa no subsisting contract for execution of works undertaken by him, and that in any event there was in law no contract between him and the State relating to the execution of works which disqualified him from standing at the election as a candidate for a seat in the State Legislative Assembly.

3. In January 1965 tenders were invited by the Government of Orissa for construction of buildings under the Rental Housing Scheme. The tenders submitted by the appellant were accepted and on March 30, 1965, the appellant and the Executive Engineer signed an agreement in Form K-2. The principal recitals in the agreements were:

"I do hereby tender to execute the undermentioned description of work by piece work, and in accordance with the conditions noted before in consideration of payment being made for the quantity of work execute at rate specified in the following scheme."

A schedule of items was appended thereto which was followed by the recital:

"Conditions as per F-2 contract which will be finalised."

4. The Executive Engineer then made an endorsement on the tenders. "Accepted by me for item 5 only," and submitted them to the Superintending Engineer for approval of "excess items. Apparently sanction was given by the Superintending Engineer but no formal contracts in Form F-2 were executed. Advance payments were however made to the appellant after execution of the agreements in Form K-2 and the appellant proceeded with the work of construction. On October 13, 1965, the appellant suffered serious injuries which necessitated his admission to a public Hospital and the construction work was stopped. On January 6, 1966, the Sub-Divisional Officer, P. W. D., Nowrangpur, addressed a letter to the appellant calling upon him to resume work on or about the January 12, 1960, failing which, he was informed, his contract will be terminated and "measurements will be recorded". On February 10, 1966, the appellant addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer P. W. D. stating that it was not possible for him to resume the work and to complete it, and he requested that the contract be cancelled without imposition of penalty. On the letter of the appellant there are two endorsements at the foot of the letter which have been marked Ext. 2 (a) and Ext. 2 (b). Exhibit 2 (a) reads:

"Submitted to the Executive Engineer, Koraput Division. The reason for terminating the contract, as mentionod by Shri A. R. Khan, contractor, is correct. His contract may be terminated without imposing penalty and permission given to take up work through job work soon." Exhibit 2 (b) dated March 18, 1966, bears the initials of the Executive Engineer, and states:

"I know of the unfortunate accident. As the applicant is still in thee Vizag Hosp

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top