Judgment

BOSE, J.: This is an appeal against a decision of the Nagpur Election Tribunal. The contest before the Tribunal was about two seats in the Bhandara Parliamentary constituency. The elections were held on five days in December 1951 and January 1952.

2. Thirteen candidates filed nomination papers, among them the petitioner. Of these six contested the seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes. One of these was Gangaram Thaware who has since died.

3. The scheduled caste in question is the Mahar caste. Objection was taken to Thaware s nomination for the reserved seat on the ground that he was not a Mahar. It is admitted that he was born a Mahar, but later in life he joined the Mahanubhava Panth. This, according to the appellant, is a sect which does not believe in caste, and alternatively that it forms a separate caste in itself. The contention was that when Gangaram Thaware joined the Panth he ceased to be a member of the Mahar caste. The objection succeeded and his nomination was rejected.

4. The nomination of another schedule caste candidate was also rejected and five others were withdrawn before the election, among them was the present petitioner. That left six-candidates of whom three were eligible for the reserved seat.

5. The two who were elected were Tularam Sekhare, for the schedule cast seat, and Chaturbhju Jasani, for the general seat. Jasani s election was challenged on the ground that he was subject to the disqualifications set out in S. 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act (Act 43 of 1951) as he was interested in a contract for the supply of goods to the Central Government.

6. The Election Tribunal held that the rejection of Gangaram Thaware s nomination was improper as he continued to be a member of the Mahar caste despite his conversion to the tenets of the Mahabubhava Panth. It also held that Chartubhuj Jasani had a contract with the Central Government, so he was disqualified. Accordingly it set aside the whole election.

7. We will deal with Chaturbhuj Jasani s election first. Section 7(d) is in these terms:

"A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member etc.

* * * *

(d) if...by himself....he has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods.....the appropriate Government."

Chaturbhuj Jasani was, and still is, a partner in the firm of Moolji Sicka & Company, and it is said that at all material times the firm had a contract for the supply of bidis to the Government for the troops.

8. Moolji Sicka & Company is a firm of bidi manufacturers. The Central Government was interested in stocking and purchasing bidis for sale to its troops through its canteens. Accordingly, it placed two of the brands of bidis manufactured by this firm on its approved list and entered into an arrangement with the firm under which the firm was to sell, and the Government was to buy from the firm, from time to time, these two brands of bidis ,. It was argued that this amounted to a contract for the supply of goods within the meaning of the section. It was said that the contract was embodied in four letters.

9. We do not intend to analyse these letters in detail here. It is enough to say that in our opinion no binding engagement can be spelt out of them except to this extent: Moolji Sicka & Company undertook to sell to the canteen contractors only through the Canteen Stores and not direct and undertook to pay a commission on all sales. This, in our opinion, constituted a continuing arrangement under which the Canteen Stores, i.e., the Government, would be entitled to the commission on all orders placed and accepted in accordance with the arrangement; and in fact the Canteen Stores did obtain a sum of Rs. 7,500 in satisfaction of a claim of this kind.

This money was paid long before the dates which are crucial here but the settlement illustrates that there was an arrangement of that nature and that it was a continuing one. In our opinion it continued in being even after that and the mere fact th