Judgment

AMRENDRA NATH SEN

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of both the appeals which arise out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on the 7th of August, 1979 in art Election Petition filed by B. Venkatarayyappa who was a candidate for election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from Sidlaghatta Assembly Constituency in the General Election held in 1978 and was defeated at the said election by S. Munishamappa, the Respondent No. 5 in the said petition who was declared elected. T. A. Kempegodwa, Respondent No. 2, Narayanappa, Respondent No. 3, and G. Papanna the Respondent No. 4 in the Election Petition. were the other candidates who had also contested the said election and had been defeated. In the said Election Petition filed by Venkatarayappa under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Petitioner had prayed for a declaration that the election of Munishamappa was void under Section 9a of the Act and also for a declaration under Section 100 of the Act that the Petitioner had been duly elected to the Assembly from the said Constituency.

( 2 ) FOR reasons recorded in the judgment, the learned Judge set aside the election of Munishamappa, holding that Munishamappa had a subsisting contract with the state Government at the date of filing his nomination paper and was, therefore, disqualified under Sec. 9a of the Act from, contesting the said election, but the learned Judge refused to declare the petitioner Venkatarayappa duly elected to the Assembly. Munishamappa has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Judge setting aside his election. Venkatarayappa has also preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Judge, refusing to declare him elected.

( 3 ) WE propose to deal in the first instance with the appeal preferred by Munishamappa who was elected at the election and whose election has been set aside.

( 4 ) THE ground on which the election of Munishamappa was challenged in the Election Petition was that at the date of filing the nomination paper for contesting the election, Munishamappa had a contract subsisting with the State Government and by reason thereof, he was disqualified from contesting the said election in view of the provisions contained in S. 9a of the Act. As we have earlier noticed, the learned Judge for reasons recorded in his judgment came to the conclusion that there was such a subsisting contract at the date of filing of the nomination paper by Munishamappa and as such he was disqualified from contesting the election and his election could not be upheld and had to be set aside.

( 5 ) THE only question that falls for determination, therefore, is whether at the date of filing the nomination paper for contesting the election, Munishamappa had a contract subsisting with the State Government within the meaning of S. 9a of the Act so as to disqualify him from contesting the election.

( 6 ) WE shall now briefly indicate the facts material for the purpose of this appeal.

( 7 ) ON l0th September, 1975 tenders were invited by the Public Works Department of the Government of Karnataka for execution of certain works which were described as "improvements to Dibburhalli Talakayala Batta Road". The appellant Munishamappa who was a licenced contractor of the Government submitted his tender and his tender was accepted. On the 25/03/1976, an agreement was entered into by and between the Government of Karnataka and the appellant for the said work. A copy of the said agreement is on the record and the material provisions of the relevant clause at the said agreement are as follows :-

"cl. 1 (ii) : The security deposit lodged by a contractor shall be refunded after the expiry of six months from the date on which the final bill is paid, or after the expiry of the date up to which the contractor has agreed to maintain the work in good order, whichever is later

NOTE:- The period of maintenance shall be twelve months from th