MODI, J.—Appellant Firoj Jal Moti Shaw and respondent Jagdishprasad were candidates for the general seat from ward no. 6 for election as members to the Mourn Abu Municipality, Mount Abu, hereinafter to be referred to as the municipality. From the same ward, Bala was candidate for the reserved seat. The elections took place on 25-10-70 and the appellant and Bala were declared duly elected from W. No. 6 for the general and reserved seats respectively. The respondent who secured less votes than the appellant, presented an election petition under sec 34 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, hereinafter to be referred as the Act, calling in question the election of the appellant as also of Bala on the ground that both of them were guilty of corrupt practices. An additional ground was also taken by the respondent that the appellant was disqualified for being elected as member by reason of Clause (xii) of sec. 26 of the Act. It was contended that the appellant on account of his being sarvesarva (a!l-in all) employee of the Mount Abu Electric Supply Company, Mt. Abu, hereinafter described as the Company, had direct or indirect interest in the contract for the supply of electricity entered into between the Company and the Municipality. The election Petition was opposed by the appellant as also by Bala. The learned Civil Judge who tried the election petition, framed the following issues.

1. Whether the non-applicant No. 1 was disqualified to stand for the election in lieu of sec 26(12) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 ?

2. Whether the applicant proves that there was a pact between the non-applicants to fight the election and for this reason the election of the non-applicants is void ?

3 Whether the non-applicant No. 1 used corrupt practices in the election as stated in para 4 of the election petition ?

4. Whether the statement (speech) of Shri Khet Singh amounted to a corrupt practice in relation to the congress candidate (non-applicant no. 2) as well as non-applicant No. 1, and if so, on that ground the election of the non-applicants could be declared invalid ?

5. Whether the election petition is without time ?

6. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the petition ?

7. Relief?

On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge found issue no. 1 in favour of the respondent. He held that the appellant being admittedly an employee of the Company had both direct and indirect interest in the contract between the Municipality and the Company. He was therefore declared disqualified under sec. 26(12) of the Act from contesting the election. Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 which related to the various allegations of corrupt practices were found against the respondent. Issues Nos. 5 and 6 were found in favour of the respondent. The learned Civil Judge, in the result, in view of his finding on issue No. 1 partly allowed the election petition and declared the election of the appellant void. Dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The main controversy in the present appeal centres round to the first issue relating to the question whether the appellant was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Municipality under sec. 26(12) of the Act. In order to appreciate the point involved in the right perspective, it is necessary to narrate some facts which are no longer in dispute. It is an admitted case of the parties that at time of the filing of the nomination papers so also at the time of the scrutiny and on the date of the election, the appellant was holding the post of Engineer-in-charge of the Company. During the relevant period he was operating the account of the Company and was looking after all the affairs of the Company. The Company commenced supplying electricity to the Municipality under an agreement entered into in the year 1939. This agreement was for a period of 30 years. On the expiry of period of 30 years, another agreement was entered into on 26-11-69 for a further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document