Back
1965 Supreme(AP) 238
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI
Ahmed Mohiuddin - Appellant
Versus
G.Malla Reedy - Respondent
Decided On : 10-25-65
A contract is valid if it is entered into by two or more parties who have the capacity to contract and who consent to the terms of the contract.
Headnote:
The court held that the contract between the Election Petitioner and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was valid and that the Central Government was not a party to the contract. The court also held that the Election Petitioner was not disqualified from standing for election under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
The Election Petitioner, G Malla Reddy, entered into a contract with the Government of Andhra Pradesh to cleanse rice stocks. The Returning Officer rejected the Election Petitioner's nomination papers on the ground that he had entered into a contract with the Central Government, which was a disqualification under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Election Petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the Election Respondent, Ahmed Mohiuddin. The Election Tribunal allowed the election petition and declared the election of the Election Respondent void. The Election Respondent filed an appeal against the decision of the Election Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract between the Election Petitioner and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was valid and that the Central Government was not a party to the contract. The court also found that the Election Petitioner was not disqualified from standing for election under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issues: 1. Whether on the date of the nomination there was o subsisting contract between the petitioner and the Central Government of nay words undertaken by the Central Government? 2. Did the Government of Andhra Pradesh act as agent of the Central Government to the contract of 1-8-1957. 3. Whether the subsequent conduct of the petitioner, as alleged by the respondent is enough to establish privity of contract between the Central Government and the Petitioner? 4. To what relief is the petitioner entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contract between the Election Petitioner and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was valid and that the Central Government was not a party to the contract. The court also held that the Election Petitioner was not disqualified from standing for election under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court relied on the following principles: * A contract is valid if it is entered into by two or more parties who have the capacity to contract and who consent to the terms of the contract. * A contract is not valid if it is entered into by a party who is disqualified from contracting, such as a minor or a person of unsound mind. * A contract is not valid if it is entered into for an illegal purpose.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Election Tribunal.
( 1 ) IN the election to Lok Sabha from the secunderabad Parliamentary constituency in the General Election held in 1962, seven persons filled their nominations before the returning Officer namely the Collector of Hyderabad District. Among those were Shri Konda Satyanaravana Mohiuddin. At the time of scrutiny of file nomination papers, Konda Satyanarayana Reddy raise an objection that G malla Reddy had entered into a contract with the Government appropriate Government on 1-8-1957 that the contract was really a tripartite agreement between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of India and Shri G Malla Reddy and that the contrat was subsisting with the result that Shri G Malla Reddy incurred a disqualification under Section 7 (d) of the Representation of the People Act (Central Act 43 of 1951) Malla Reddy opposed the objection. The Returning officer heard the learned counsel on both sides and passed an order dated 23-1-1962 holding as follows:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THOUGH formal agreement was entered into by the Miller (G Malla Reddy) with the State Government for all practical purposes, Shri Malla Reddy has accepted by his conduct his contractual obligations with the Central Government. The State Government was only acting as an undisclosed agent to the Central Government and the contract is subsisting. I, therefore hold that the candidate incurs the disqualification enumerated in Section 7 (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The objection are upheld and the nomination paper is rejected". Subsequently the objector Konda Satyanarayanan Reddy withdrew from the contest. The Election took place in due course and resulted in success for Shri Ahmed Mohiuddin. After the latter was declared as duly elected. Shri G. Malla Reddy (hereafter referred to in this judgement as the Election Petitioner) filed as an Election Petition ( E P No. 12 of 1962) before the Ahmed Mohiuddin at Hyderabad against Shri Ahmed Mohiuddin hereinafter referred to as the Election Respondent. Thereinafter referred to as the Respondent) The learned Tribunal after full trial, allowed the Election petition and declared the election of the Election Respondent void , holding as follows:"the whole of the documentary and oral evidence conclusively establishes that the contract was with the State Government. That being so, in my opinion, the Returning Officer was wrong in rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that he entered into a contract with the Union Government "he also awarded costs to the Election Petitioner and fixed the Advocates fee at Rs. 500. The Election Respondent filed this appeal against the decision of the Election Tribunal.
( 2 ) BEYOND doubt or dispute, the Election Petitioner (Shri G Malla Reddy) entered into an agreement dated 1-8-1957. The original contract is Ex B 12 and its copy is Ex A 1 its relevant provisions are as follows: AGREEMENT BOND "this Agreement Made in Exercise of The Executive Powers of the States. Executive Powers of the States, this Ist Day of August 1957 BETWEEN The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (hereinafter called the Government which expression shall include his successors, assignees of the one part and Shri G Malla Reddy, Prop M/ Janata Rice Mill, Chandrayan Gutta, son of Shri G. Venkat Reddy Caste Hindu, Reddy age 401 years, occupation contractor, resident at Chandrayanan Gutta Hyderabad (hereinafter called the Mill owner) which expression shall include his representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, and assignees f the other part: Whereas the Government require the rice stocks to be cleaned; and Whereas the mill owner has agreed to cleanse the rice stocks as given to him from time to time it is hereby agreed by an between the parties as follows: 1 soon after the consignment is received at either Nampally or Kachiguda Railway Station , the representative of the Civil Supplies Department in the presence of the re
