VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Section 9A of Representative of People Act, 1951 providing disqualification for Government contract etc. does not operate to disqualify the lessee of a mining lease such as the appellant Kartar Singh Bhadava. High Court wrongly set aside his election and declared first respondent duly elected on his application of Section 9A of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Bharucha, J.-The appellant and the respondents were candidates from the Smalkha constituency at the general election to the Haryana Assembly held on 22nd February, 2000. The appellant secured the largest number of votes, namely 37,174, and he was declared elected. The first respondent secured 26,159 votes. The first respondent challenged the election of the appellant by filing an election petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He contended that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers the appellant held from the appropriate Government, that of the State of Haryana, five leases for the extraction of major and minor minerals and that, therefore, he was disqualified from contesting the election. The High Court upheld the contention holding that "a mining contract or a mining lease is a contract to execute a Government work on behalf of the Government and it is covered under Section 9-A of the Act", the Act being the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The High Court set aside the election of the appellant and declared the first respondent duly elected.

2. The judgment and order of the High Court is under appeal by special leave.

3. Section 9-A of the said Act reads thus :

"9-A. Disqualification for government contracts etc.-A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by, that government."

4. The disqualification provision in the said Act has been amended twice. In the original Act it was provided by Section 7 that a person is disqualified "if, whether by himself or by any person or body of persons in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account, he has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works or the performance of any services undertaken by, the appropriate government." This provision was amended in 1958 and it said that a person is disqualified "if there subsists a contract entered into the course of his trade or business by him with the appropriate government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by that government." This provision was amended in 1966 and Section 9-A as quoted above was substituted.

5. Three judgments of this Court deal with disqualification. A Constitution Bench considered disqualification in C.V.K. Rao v. Dentu Bhaskara Rao1 in the context of a mining lease. It was there contended that a mining lease was tantamount to a contract for the supply of goods to the appropriate Government and it was held that the contention must fail.

6. In Dewan Joynal Abedin v. Abdul Wazed Alias Abdul Wazad Miah & Ors.2, the question of disqualification was considered in the context of a contract to collect tolls at a Government ferry run under the Ferries Act. This Court held that an analysis of Section 9-A showed that only in two cases would a person be disqualified if he had entered into a contract with the appropriate Government in the course of his trade or business, which subsisted on the date of scrutiny of nominations; they were (1) when the contract was one for supply of goods to the appropriate Government and (2) when it was one for the execution of works undertaken by that Government. The question for determination, it was said, was whether the contract to collect tolls at a Government ferry entered into in accordance with the Ferries Act amounted to a contract for execution of any works undertaken by the appropriate Government. The Court noted the observations of Gajendragadkar, J. in the case of Ram Padarath Mahto v. Mishri Singh3 thus :

"It may sound technical, but in dealing with a statutory provision which imposes a disqualification on a citizen it would be unreasonable to take merely a broad and general view and ignore the essential points of distincti