1967 Supreme(Raj) 110

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Jagatnarayan
RAMLAL - Appellant
Versus
VISHVESHWAR NATH - Respondent
Civil Election Petn. 20 Of 1967
Decided On : 08/01/1967

The office of Pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan is not an office under the Government within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

The court held that the office of Pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan is not an office under the Government within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court also held that the office of Pramukh is an office of profit within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court further held that the respondent was not disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament under Article 102 (1) (a) as he did not hold an office under the Government. The court also held that the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 was made by Parliament in exercise of its power under Article 327 of the Constitution and its validity cannot be challenged in any court. The court also held that the non-compliance of Sections 25 and 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is of no consequence as it was not alleged or proved that the result of the election was materially affected by the non-compliance. The court also held that the respondent was duly qualified to be chosen as a member of Parliament under the relevant part of Article 84 (a) of the Constitution and his election is not liable to be set aside on the ground that he was disqualified under Article 84 (a) of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Ramlal, filed an election petition challenging the election of Vishveshwar Nath Bhargava, the respondent, to the Lok Sabha from the Ajmer Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament under Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution as he held an office of profit under the Government of Rajasthan, namely, the office of Pramukh of the Zila Parishad, Ajmer. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent was disqualified under Section 3 (1) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, as he was entitled to draw an honorarium of Rs. 300/- per month as Pramukh. The petitioner further alleged that the inclusion of Bhim and Kumbhalgarh Assembly Constituencies in the Ajmer Parliamentary Constituency by the Delimitation Commission was void as it was done without obtaining the approval of Parliament. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent had committed a breach of Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by filing the return of his election expenses before the District Election Officer, Udaipur instead of the District Election Officer, Ajmer. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent was not duly qualified to be chosen as a member of Parliament under Article 84 of the Constitution as he had not taken the oath or affirmation before a person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the office of Pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan is not an office under the Government within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court also found that the office of Pramukh is an office of profit within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court further found that the respondent was not disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament under Article 102 (1) (a) as he did not hold an office under the Government. The court also found that the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 was made by Parliament in exercise of its power under Article 327 of the Constitution and its validity cannot be challenged in any court. The court also found that the non-compliance of Sections 25 and 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is of no consequence as it was not alleged or proved that the result of the election was materially affected by the non-compliance. The court also found that the respondent was duly qualified to be chosen as a member of Parliament under the relevant part of Article 84 (a) of the Constitution and his election is not liable to be set aside on the ground that he was disqualified under Article 84 (a) of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the office of Pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan (1) under the Government and is it (2) an office of profit within the meaning of article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution? 1. (B) Is the amount of Rs. 300/- which respondent No. 1 was admittedly entitled to draw as Pramukh of Zila Parishad Salary or honorarium or compensatory allowance? 1. (C) Did respondent No. 1 not draw the above amount from the second week of January 1967 up to the date of election? If so, what is its effect? 1. (D) Is the office exempt above from disqualification under Section 3 (1) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act (No. 10 of 1959), 1959? 2. (A) Is Section 10 (2) of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 void on the ground that by delegating its power to the delimitation commission to such an extent the parliament has effected itself? 2. (B) If so, is taking Bhim and Kurabhalgarh Assembly Constituencies to ajmer Parliamentary Constituency void, and the votes polled in these assembly Constituencies should be excluded? If so, how will the result of the election be effected? 2. (C) Can the Delimitation Order. 1966 be challenged before this Court in this Election petition under the Representation of the People Act. 1951? 3. (A) Whether the presiding and polling Officers for Bhim and kumbhalgarh Constituencies were not appointed by District Election officer Ajmer? 3. (B) If so, who appointed them? Was any breach of the provisions of section 25 or 26 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 thereby committed? 3. (C) Is it necessary to go into the above questions in the absence of any allegation in the petition that the result of the election was materially affected by irregularity, if any of the above description?. 4. (A) Did the respondent commit a breach of Section 78 of the representation of the People Act. 1951 by filing the return of his election expenses before the District Election Officer. Aimer and by not filing the return before the District Election Officer, Udaipur? 4. (B) Does it constitute a ground for setting aside the election under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 5. (A) Was the Returning Officer of the Aimer parliamentary constituency not authorised to administer oath to the respondent under article 84 of the Constitution by virtue of Notification No. S. O. 3215 dated 14-11-1963, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), part II, Section 3 (ii ). No. 228 dated 16-11-1963. 5. (B) If so, is the election liable to be set aside under Section 100 (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the office of Pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan is not an office under the Government within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court also held that the office of Pramukh is an office of profit within the meaning of Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court further held that the respondent was not disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament under Article 102 (1) (a) as he did not hold an office under the Government. The court also held that the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 was made by Parliament in exercise of its power under Article 327 of the Constitution and its validity cannot be challenged in any court. The court also held that the non-compliance of Sections 25 and 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is of no consequence as it was not alleged or proved that the result of the election was materially affected by the non-compliance. The court also held that the respondent was duly qualified to be chosen as a member of Parliament under the relevant part of Article 84 (a) of the Constitution and his election is not liable to be set aside on the ground that he was disqualified under Article 84 (a) of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition with costs.