JUDGMENT

KHANNA, J.:— (on behalf of himself and N. L. Untwalia J.) On an election petition filed by Ratnakar Mohanty respondent, the election of Judgal Kishore Patnaik appellant to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from Bhadrak constituency was declared to be void by the Orissa High Court and as such set aside. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

2. Bhadrak assembly constituency is a single-member general constituency. During the general elections to the Orissa Legislative Assembly held in February 1974, the respondent filed four nomination papers for being elected from this constituency. At the time of scrutiny on January 30, 1974, objection was raised at the instance of Balaram Sahu, one of the contesting candidates, before the Returning Officer that the respondent was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Assembly as there subsisted contracts between him and the Government of Orissa for execution of certain works. The respondent, it was accordingly asserted, was disqualified under Section 9 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from seeking election. Some documents were also produced before the Returning Officer to show that proceedings had been initiated by the Block Development officer for realisation of certain amounts alleged to be due under those contracts from the respondent. The Returning Officer up-held the objection and rejected the nomination papers of the respondent.

3. Four candidates contested the election, but the main contest was between the appellant, a Congress nominee, who secured 25,552 votes, and Balaram Sahu an Utkal Congress nominee, who secured 18,723 votes. The result of the election was declared on February 28, 1974. Petition to challenge the election of the appellant was filed by the respondent on April 12, 1974.

4. The case of the respondent, as set up in the election petition was that his nomination papers had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. According to the respondent, the works on account of which he had been held to the disqualified by the Returning Officer had been undertaken by him not in his personal capacity but as the Sarpanch of Rahanj Gram Panchayat under the Bhadrak Panchayat Samiti. The respondent, therefore, prayed that the election of the appellant be declared to be void.

5. The petition was resisted by the appellant. Objections were raised on his behalf that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Act. It was also averred that the nomination papers filed by the respondent were not in conformity with Section 33 and 34 of the Act. On merits, the appellant stated that the respondent was disqualified under Section 9A of the Act from seeking election to the Legislative Assembly of Orissa because he had on the date of filing of the nomination papers subsisting contracts with the Government of Orissa in course of his trade and business for execution of work undertaken by the Government. Following issues were framed by the High Court:

"ISSUES

1. Is the election petition liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

2. Whether the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was in substantial compliance of Sections 33 and 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

3. Was the petitioner disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, having subsisting contract with the Government of Orissa in course of his trade and business for execution of work undertaken by the Government on the date of the filing of the nomination?

4. To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled toin the facts and circumstances of the case?"

Issues (1) to (3) were decided by the High Court in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. In the result, the election of the appellant was declared to be void.

6. In appeal before us Mr. D. P. Singh ha