The court interpreted the provisions of Section 35(i) and Section 28(vii) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and held that a candidate with a share or interest in a contract with the Council is disqualified from contesting the election and that publishing mock ballot papers without the names and addresses of the printer and publisher constitutes a corrupt practice.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. By this petition under Section 26 of M. P. Municipalities Act, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order dated 29-11-1996 passed in Election Petition No. 23/95 by the learned Ist Addl. District Judge, Sagar whereunder the election of the petitioner has been set aside and non-applicant Shaym Kishore has been declared elected.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that in election of a Councillor of Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Ward No. 7 elections were held on 27-11-1994; the counting was held on 29-11-1994. The applicant was declared elected having obtained 302 votes. The non-applicant No. 1 received 194 valid votes. The election petition was filed under Section 20 of M. P. Municipalities Act inter alia on the grounds that the returned candidate had a surviving contract with the Municipality; a sum of Rs. 4,130/- and Rs. 1,986/- was to be paid to the returned candidate under the said agreement, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to contest elections. It was also contended that the present applicant or his election agent adopted the corrupt practices by getting the mock ballot papers. Various other allegations were also made against the present applicant, but the same are not required to be considered at this stage because the said allegations were not found proved and the parties in this revision petition have not challenged the said findings. The present applicant filed his written statement and inter alia pleaded that the contracts were not in existence, but the said contracts were concluded on 25-3-1992 and 10-7-1992. He, however, submitted that certain amounts were required to be paid to him by the Nagar Panchayat but this non-payment would not mean that the contracts were subsisting. Regarding publication of the mock ballot paper, it was contended that the ballot paper was got published by him and the said ballot paper did not have names and addresses of the printer and publisher. It was, however, contended that the same would not amount to corrupt practice.

3. The trial Court after recording the evidence held that the applicant had some share or interest in the contract with the Council, therefore, while owning such share or interest the applicant was disqualified from contesting the elections. It was also found by the trial Court that the applicant acted contrary to the Conduct Rules issued by the Election Commission and contrary to the provisions of Section 28(vii) of the Municipalities Act, 1961, therefore, the election deserved to be set aside. While setting aside the election, the trial Court granted a further declaration that the non-applicant No. 1 stands declared as returned candidate. Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the provisions as contained in Section 35(i) were wrongly applied. According to him, the contract had come to an end but the amount only was required to be paid to the applicant. Regarding Section 28, it was submitted that the mock ballot paper would not come within the mischief of circular, placard or poster therefore, there was no case of corrupt practice. Referring to language of Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, it was contended that non-payment of the amount by the Nagar Panchayat would not keep the contract surviving for the purposes of submitting the nomination form. Placing strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. @ Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 682, it was submitted that the Court below was unjustified in granting a declaration in favour of non-applicant No. 1. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the language of Section 35(i) is clearly distinct from the language of Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, therefore, the said language cannot be applied to the present case. He submits that because of