Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
Jamuna Prasad
Versus
Jogendra Prasad
Civil Revision No. 679 of 1949 ; 773 of 1949 ;
Decided On : MARCH 14, 1950
ELECTION - District Board Election - Corrupt practices - Interpretation of Rule 3 (b), District Board Electoral Rules, 1937 - Meaning of the word "contract" - Whether it includes a transfer of property or any interest in property - Whether a person is disqualified for election merely because he has taken a lease of or purchased some property from the District Board - Construction of Rule 16 (1) (b) and Rule 16 (2), District Board Election Petitions Rules, 1939 - Whether the four Clauses (a) to (d) in Rule 16 (2) should be read conjunctively - Whether an error of law in the interpretation of the rules would attract the operation of Sec.115, Civil P. C.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition filed by three unsuccessful candidates against three returned candidates in connection with the last District Board election held in May and June, 1947, in respect of police-station Muzaffarpur-- Kamtaul Kanti constituency. The Election Commissioner found that the respondent Jamuna Prasad Tripathi was a member of the joint family consisting of himself, his father and his brothers, and that his plea of separation was false. He also found that these was evidence to show that leases had been obtained of the District Board road-side lands by the father and the brothers of the respondent, and although these leases expired, the lessees thereunder had been holding over, and the District Board had not taken possession of the lands in question after dispossessing the said lessees. The Election Commissioner accordingly held that contractual relationship existed between the father and brothers of respondent 1 and the District Board at the time when the nomination paper was filed by respondent 1 and respondent 1 being a member of the joint family with his father and brothers, he was directly interested in such contracts, and, as such, he was not eligible for election under Rule 3 (b), District Board Electoral Rules, 1937. The Election Commissioner also found that several hired women other than the real voters had been allowed to vote for the actual voters in favour of the Congress candidates meaning the two respondents in the election petition. He also found that there was definite proof that several votes cast in the name of dead persons were cast in favour of the respondent, Jamuna Prasad Tripathi, and only two in favour of the other respondent, Jagat Prasad Singh. He accordingly held that these corrupt practices committed in the interest of the returned candidates came within Rule 16 (1) (b), District Board Election Petitions Rules, 1939, and accordingly the election of the returned candidates had to be declared void. He also found that the corrupt practices in question were not of a trivial nature and could not be brushed aside. In regard to the respondent applicant, Jamuna Prasad Tripathi, he held that he wag personally responsible for the corrupt practices in question which were to his knowledge and at his connivance but, is so far as Jagat Prasad Singh is concerned, he held that the corrupt, practices were resorted to without his knowledge and connivance, and his case came within Rule 16 (2) of the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the interpretation of the rule given by the Election Commissioner was on the whole correct. The language of the rule is sufficiently wide to cover a case of contractual relationship arising out of leases as well, or for the matter of that out of any other kind of contract. The comprehensive intention of the rule seems to be particularly emphasised by the expression: "No person shall be eligible for election if he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract." The Court also held that the Election Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the matter in a manner contrary to the provisions of the rules. The Court further held that the corrupt practices involved did not materially affect the result of the election because the respondent, Jamuna Prasad, was returned by an overwhelming majority of votes. This argument does not arise in construing Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Election Petitions Rules. All that is required under that rule is that the corrupt practice in question must have been committed in the interest of the returned candidate in which case his election must be held to be void. The Court also held that the various clauses in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 have to be read conjunctively, and that all the conditions enumerated in chose clauses must be found to exist before a returned candidate can take advantage of Sub-rule (2).
Issues: 1. Whether the word "contract" used in Rule 3 (b), District Board Electoral Rules, 1937, includes a transfer of property or any interest in property? 2. Whether a person is disqualified for election merely because he has taken a lease of or purchased some property from the District Board? 3. Whether the four Clauses (a) to (d) in Rule 16 (2), District Board Election Petitions Rules, 1939, should be read conjunctively? 4. Whether an error of law in the interpretation of the rules would attract the operation of Sec.115, Civil P. C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "contract" used in Rule 3 (b), District Board Electoral Rules, 1937, is sufficiently wide to cover a case of contractual relationship arising out of leases as well, or for the matter of that out of any other kind of contract. 2. A person is disqualified for election if he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with or under the district or local board or union committee or union board. 3. The four Clauses (a) to (d) in Rule 16 (2), District Board Election Petitions Rules, 1939, should be read conjunctively. 4. An error of law in the interpretation of the rules would attract the operation of Sec.115, Civil P. C., as it related to the extent of jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the applications and the order passed by the Election Commissioner stood.
Sarjoo Prasad, J.
1. These two applications in revision are directed against an order dated 8-8-1949, of Mr. P. K. Nag, as an Additional Election Commissioner of Muzaffarpur.
2. The order in question arises out of an election petition presented by three unsuccessful candidates against three returned candidates, namely, the applicant in Civ. Revn. No. 679 of 1949, Jamuna Prasad Tripathi, Ramdhari Prasad (since dead) and Jagat Prasad Singh, the respondent opposite party in Civ. Revn. No. 773 of 1949, in connection with the last District Board election held in May and June, 1947, in respect of police-station Muzaffarpur-- Kamtaul Kanti constituency. The respondent Ramdhari Prasad having died subsequent to the presentation of the election petition, a fresh bye-election was held in respect of the vacancy so caused, and his name was expunged from the election petition. The election petition, therefore, is now concerned only with the election of the returned candidates Jamuna Prasad Tripathi and Jagat Prasad Singh, the surviving respondents named in that petition.
3. The election petition raised various grounds of objection to the return of the candidates concerned. It would be unnecessary to refer to all the other grounds except those on which the election petition succeeded before the Election Commissioner.
4. The first objection against the respondent Jamuna Prasad Tripathi who is the petitioner in Civ. Revn. No. 679 of 1949 was that the respondent was a member of a joint family which used to be contractors under the District Board during election, and, as such, the said respondent Jamuna Prasad Tripathi was not eligible foe election to the District Board. Jamuna Prasad Tripathi contested on the ground, firstly, that he was separate from the other members of his family, namely, his father and brothers, and secondly, that in any case the members of his family were not contractors under the District Board, and, consequently no objection could be raised as to his eligibility to the election as a member of the said Board. The Election Commissioner after a consideration of the evidence came to a definite finding that the respondent Jamuna Prasad Tripathi was a member of the joint family consisting of himself, his father and his brothers, and that his plea of separation was false. He also found that these was evidence to show that leases had been obtained of the District Board road-side lands by the father and the brothers of the respondent, and although these leases expired, the lessees thereunder had been holding over, and the District Board had not taken possession of the lands in question after dispossessing the said lessees. He accordingly held that
"contractual relationship existed between the father and brothers of respondent 1 and the District Board at the time when the nomination paper was filed by respondent 1"
and respondent 1 being a member of the joint family with his father and brothers, he was directly interested in such contracts, and, as such, he was not eligible for election under Rule 3 (b), District Board Electoral Rules, 1937.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant before us contends that this finding of the Election Commissioner that the father of the respondent or his brothers were lessees in respect of the road-side lands belonging to the District Board did not in any manner bring him within the mischief of the said rule, In order to appreciate the point, it would be useful to quote the rule in question.
6. It provides:
"No person shall be eligible for election if he is in the employment or pay of the district board or of any local board or union committee or union board subordinate to that district board or who has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with or under the district or local board or union committee or union board."
The relevant provision with which we are concerned in this case is whether the respondent had "directly or indirectly any share or interest in
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
