Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And P. V. B. Rao, J.
PYARI MOHAN DAS - Appellant
Versus
DURGA SANKAR DAS - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 185 Of 1957
Decided On : FEBRUARY 03, 1958
The Orissa High Court, in the case of P. V. B. Rao v. Durga Sankar Das, ruled on the validity of the election of respondent Durga Sankar Das to the Orissa Legislative Assembly. The court considered several grounds of challenge to the election, including allegations that the respondent held an office of profit under the state government, had entered into subsisting contracts with the government, failed to maintain proper accounts of election expenses, and engaged in corrupt practices such as bribery and inducement of voters.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, P. V. B. Rao, challenged the election of respondent Durga Sankar Das to the Orissa Legislative Assembly on several grounds, including that the respondent held an office of profit under the state government, had entered into subsisting contracts with the government, failed to maintain proper accounts of election expenses, and engaged in corrupt practices such as bribery and inducement of voters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not hold an office of profit under the state government at the time of filing his nomination papers, that the contracts entered into with the government were not subsisting at the time of the nomination, that the respondent had maintained proper accounts of election expenses, and that there was no evidence of corrupt practices.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent held an office of profit under the state government at the time of filing his nomination papers? 2. Whether the contracts entered into with the government were subsisting at the time of the nomination? 3. Whether the respondent had maintained proper accounts of election expenses? 4. Whether there was evidence of corrupt practices by the respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent did not hold an office of profit under the state government at the time of filing his nomination papers because he had resigned from his position as Assistant Public Relations Officer prior to the nomination date and his resignation had been accepted by the government. 2. The court held that the contracts entered into with the government were not subsisting at the time of the nomination because the work under the contracts had been completed and the respondent had been paid in full. 3. The court held that the respondent had maintained proper accounts of election expenses because he had submitted a detailed account of all expenses incurred during the election campaign, as required by law. 4. The court held that there was no evidence of corrupt practices by the respondent because the allegations of bribery and inducement of voters were not supported by any credible evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the election of the respondent, Durga Sankar Das, to the Orissa Legislative Assembly.
P. V. B. RAO, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116 (A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the order of the Election Tribunal (Additional District Judge. Balasore) dismissing the petition of the appellant praying for setting aside the election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly of respondent No. 1 Sri Durga Sankar das.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 belongs to Taladi. He was elected to the Orissa Legislative assembly from the Bhograi Constituency in the election held in 1957. The appellant-petitioner and respondent No. 2 were the two defeated candidates in that election.
( 3 ) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the people Act 1951 alleging that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter railed the respondent) had been working as the Assistant Public Relations Officer under the State of orissa and though the latter alleged to have submitted his resignation the same had not been accepted by the authorities and as such he is a person holding an office of profit on the day fixed for tiling nomination papers; that as an Assistant district Public Relations Officer he had been taking money from the Government to do work for the Government and the accounts thereof had not been finalised and some money was still owing to the Government; that he undertook the execution of the work of tube-wells in the year 1952-53 by a contract entered into with the government of Orissa which was subsisting till the date of nomination and as such disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly not only under Article 191 of the Constitution, but also under Section 7, Sub-section (d) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the Act.)The petitioner also alleged that the respondent contravened the provisions of section 77 of the Act and that the respondent had paid gratification by way of money to several electors to vote for him and to induce other voters of the constituency tq vote for him; and consequently his election was void.
( 4 ) THE respondent in his written statement denied all the allegations. He pleaded that he was holding a temporary post of Assistant District Public Relations Officer which he had re-signed since 10th January, 1956; and that his resignation was duly accepted by the appropriate authority and another person was appointed in his place long before he was nominated as a candidate for the election. He also stated that he ceased to take any money from the Government long before the filing of the nomination paper and even if any money remained payable to the Government, the accounts not having been finalised as yet that cannot be regarded as an undertaking of any sevice to be performed for the Government: that he had not undertaken any contract for execution of any work for the government of Orissa; that the tube-well contracts were taken under the district development scheme of the Revenue Department of the Government of Orissa and under the said scheme the Government bore two-thirds of the costs, the rest being borne by the villagers; that he had undertaken the work on behalf of and as the representative of the villagers and as such, the execution of those works did not come under the provisions of Section 7 (d) of the Ant; and that also the said works were completed long before and final payment obtained by him on the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer Balasore dated 7-7-55 and as such from that date the contracts did not subsist. He also averred that he had not incurred or authorised expenses in violation of Section 77 of the Act; that he had never paid any voter to vote for him or to induce others to vote for him; and that he and his agents were not guilty of any of the acts alleged against them and the petition was liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal held that the respondent was not a holder of an office of profit under the State of Orissa on the date of filing of his nomination paper; that the advance of Rs. 60/- take
AI
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
