BHAGW AN SINGH versus RAMESHW AR PRASAD SASTRI & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 14-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
535 
occasion arises for the Election Commission to make 
r959 
an order about the payment of this amount to the 
Shri Chandrika 
successful party the use of the word "refundable" will Prasad Tripathi 
cause no difficulty whatever. We hold that the secu-
v. 
rity has been made by respondent 1 as required by Shri Siv Prasad 
s. 117 of the Act and would be at the disposal of the 
Chanpuria 
d. 
<!>- Others 
Election Commission in the present procee mgs. 
_ 
We would like to add that even s. 117 has been Gajendragadkar J. 
subsequently amended by Act 58 of 1958 and the 
reference to the Secretary has been deleted. 
The result is the appeal fails and must be dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
BHAGW AN SINGH 
v. 
RAMESHW AR PRASAD SASTRI & OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) 
Election Dispute-Disqualification for membership-Election to 
State Legislature-Interest in contracts-Contract entered into as 
Mukhiya of Panchayat-Representation of the People Act, r95r (43 
of I95I), SS. 7(d), 8I, IOO(I)(a). 
The election of the appellant as a member of the Bihar State 
Assembly was challenged under s. 7(d) of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1951, by the first respondent who was also a 
candidate for election for the same constituency, on the ground 
that at the date of the nomination the appellant had an interest· 
in contracts for execution of works undertaken by the Bihar 
Government, and that his nomination had been improperly 
accepted. 
The appellant's plea inter alia was that he had 
executed the contracts not in his individual capacity but as the 
Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat and therefore the disqualifi-
cation imposed bys. 7(d) of the Act could not be invoked against 
him. The contracts in question related to community projects 
undertaken in pursuance of the Second Five Year Plan, under 
which the execution of different works adopted under the plan was 
to be by popular local agencies like Village Panchayats. The con-
tracts were all in the prescribed form and the appellant, at the com-
I959 
April r4. 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
r959 
Bhagwan Singh 
mencement of the contract, described himself by his name, stat-
ing that he belonged to the village. The preamble to the contract 
showed that the appellant undertook to carry out the con-
struction of the development project under local works pro-
v. 
Rameshwar 
Prasad Sastri 
Gajendragadkar 
gramme mentioned in the contrast as per estimate attached 
thereto, that he agreed to execute the work according to and 
subject to the terms and conditions contained therein and that 
he undertook to contribute 50% of the cost in cash and labour. 
At the end of the contract he signed as Mukhiya, giving his 
address as the Gram Panchayat. The Election Tribunal found 
in favour of the appellant and dismissed the election petition, 
but, on appeal, the High Court took the view (1) that the des-
cription of the appellant given by him at the time when he 
signed the contracts was not a term of the contract and could 
not therefore support his plea that he had executed the contract 
as Mukhiya of the Panchayat, and (2) that the fact that he 
undertook liability to execute the contracts as required and to 
become liable for payment of any fine imposed by the local 
government officer in case of his default showed obligations of a 
personal character inconsistent with his plea. 
Held, that, on a proper construction of the contracts taking 
into account all the terms and conditions as a whole and con-
sidering them in the light of the background of the Second 
Five Year Plan, when the appellant signed the contracts as the 
Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat he acted as its agent and not 
as an individual acting in his personal capacity. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
139 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated January 8, 1959, of the Patna High Court 
in Election Appeal No. 1 of 1958, arising out of the 
judgment and order dated November 30, 1957, of the 
Election Tribunal, Patna, in Election Petition No. 
353 of 1957. 
B. K. P. Sinha and D. P. Singh, for the appellant. 
G. 0. Mathur and Dipak D. Ohoudhri, for respon-
dent No. 1. 
R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 3. 
1959. 
April .14. 
The Judgment of the Court w11.s 
delivered by 
J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave 
arises from the election petition filed by respondent, 
1 (No. 353 o

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