ABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN versus SADASIVA TRIPATHI

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 15-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN 
v. 
SADASIVA TRIPATHI 
July 15, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 9A-Contract with 
Government-Not entered with Governor-If disqualifies. 
Constitution of India, Art, 229-Contract not entered with Governor-
Whether disqualifies under s. 9A Representation of the People Act. 
The appellant's tenders to carry out certain contracts with the State of 
Orissa were accepted but final contracts were not executed on behalf of 
the Governor. The appellant carried on a part of the work and there-
after requested the authorities to cancel the contract without any penalty. 
No acceptance of this offer waSa communicated to the appellant. 
The 
appellant wrote letters to the Superintending Engineer for extension of 
time and for permission to resume the work and finish it. Shortly there-
after the appellant filed his nomination paper for a seat to the State 
Legislative Assembly, which was rejected. The appellant filed an election 
petition for setting, aside the election of the respondent on the ground 
ihat the appellants nomination 
paper 
was improperly 
rejected. 
fhe 
High Court rejected the petition. 
HELD : The appellant was rightly disqualified. 
(i) The contract was not wholly performed by' the appellant. 
Unless 
he proved that he had completed the contract or showed that there was 
determination by mutual assent of the: contract, the appellant could not 
claim .that there was no subsisting contract at the date of the filing of the 
nomination paper. 
The 
conduct of the 
appellant in writing the two 
letters suggested that he did not treat the contract as cancelled, nor there 
was any clear evidence to show that the authorities had treated the con-
tract as cancelled, [356 C-E] 
(ii) The contract resulting from the acceptance of his tender though 
not enforceable by suit against tho State Government, because it did not 
comply with Art. 299 of the Constitution must still be regarded as dis-
qualifying the appellant under the Representation of People 
Act from 
standing as a candidate for election to the State Legislature. [357 HJ 
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani 
v. 
Moreshwar 
Parashram 
& 
Ors., 
[1954] S.C.R. 817 and Laliteshwar Prasad Sahi v. Bateshwar Prasad & 
Ors., [1966] 2 S.C.R. 63, fOllowed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 1723 of 
1967. 
Appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 of the judgment and order dated October 14, 
H 
1967 of the Orissa High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 
1967. 
D. Goburdhun, for the appellant. 
352 
SCPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1969] l S.C.R. 
C. B. Agarwala, Uma Mehta, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga, for 
A 
the respondent, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shalt, J. At the last general elections, the respondent was dec-
lared elected to the Legislative Assembly of Orissa from 
the 
Nowrangpur General Constituency. 
The appellant filed an elec-
tion petition before the High Court of Orissa for an order setting 
aside the election of the respondent, on the ground that the appel-
lant's nomination paper was improperly rejected and he was ille-
gally deprived of his right to contest the election. The High Court 
rejected the petition. 
The appellant has appealed to this Court 
under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
It is common ground that the appellant was carrying on the 
business of a building contractor and that in pursuance of a noti-
fication issued by the Government of Orissa he had submitted 
tenders for construction of buildings 
of the Rental 
Housing 
Scheme at the rates specified therein. Those tenders were accept-
ed and the appellant had carried out a part of the construction 
work, but had thereafter stopped the work becau~e he suffered 
serious injuries which necessitated his detention in a public hospi-
tal. 
The appellant claimed that at his request the contract was 
cancelled, and on that account at the date of the filing of his 
nomination there was, between him and the State of Orissa no 
subsisting contract for execution of works undertaken by him, 
and that in any event there was in law no contract between him 
and the State relating to the execution of works which disquali-
fied him from standing at the election as a candidate for a scat 
in the State Legislative Assembly. 
B 
c 
D 
.E 
In January 1965 tenders were invited by the Government of 
Orissa for construction of buildings under 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.