LexC. V. K. RAO versus DENTU BHASKARA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1'64 Mualtl "· Stat• of U.P. Ga1endragadkar c. J. 1964 May, 4 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS young men must have joined the unlawful assembly under pressure and influence of the elders of their respective families. The list of accused persons shows that the unlaw- ful assembly was constituted by members of different families and having regard to the manner in which these factions ordinarily conduct themselves in villages, it ~ould not be unreasonable to hold that these three young men must have been compelled to join the unlawful assembly that morning by their elders, and so, we think that the ends of justice would be met if the sentences of death imposed on them are modified into sentences of life imprisonment. Accord- ingly, we confirm the orders of convictio:i and sentence pas- sed against all the appellants except accused Nos. 9, 11 and 16 in whose cases the sentences are altered to those of im- prisonment for life. In the result, the appeals are dismissed, subj.:ct to the said modification. Appeals dismissed. C. V. K. RAO v. DENTU BHASKARA RAO (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., M. HIDAYATULI.AH, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Representation of the People Act (XLlll of 1951), s. 1(d)-Scope of- "ln tla1 cour1e of trade or businesl'', Mea1ting of-Mining lca.Yt- Right of Government to pre-emption of minerals-If a contract for 1upply of good• ~1 leuee. The respondent obtained a mining lca.se from the State Government. Clause 21 of the lease reserved to the Government the right to prior purchase of the minerals raised by the lessee. While the lease was subsisting, the respondent stood for election to the State Legislative Assembly and was elected. The appellant, his closest competitor, chal- lenged the election by an election petition on the ground, inter alia, that the respon'dent was disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of People Act (XI.Ill ot 1951), because he had a contract with the Government for 1upply of goocla. 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 153 HELD: the petition must be dismissed. The disqualifi:ation which rcsulta from the section b conditioned by three circumstance.. First, there must be a subsisting contract betwocn the appropriate Government and the candidate. Then the contract must be in the course of the trade or busineso of the candidate and, finally it n•ust be int<r alia for the supply of goods to such Government. Held in the case th8.t as the mining lease was subsisting. the contract if any, was also subsisting. Further that the mining lease, if it wa.s a contract, wu in the course of the business of the respondent It was not necessary that a course of business based upon other transactiom must have lint existed hr.fore .the offending contract could be sa:d to be in the course of business. fhe contract itself could be the start of the business. Held therefore that the mining leas<i WM not a contract to supply &oods to the Government. There was only a right in the Government to pre.empt the minerals and iessee could not begin delivery to the Government until Governm~nt served a notice on him stating the quantity pre-empted and the time within which the supply should be made. This was only a reservation of a right of pre-emption which did not amount to a con- tract for the supply of goods which could be said to subsist between tho partieo. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1072 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated April l 0. 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Special Appeal No. 52 of 1962. K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the respondent. May 4, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 19" c. v. K. • ..... Y. Dent• B~ Rao HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The respondent Dentu Bhaskara HidaJat11l1"" I Rao was returned to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Kakinada constituency at the last general election. The appellant C. V. K. Rao was his closest competitor. There were two other candidates but they obtained very few votes and they have not shown any further interest. The appellant filed an election petition to question the election of the respondent on many grounds: one ·such ground was that the respondent was disqualified 1964 -.:. V. K. Rao v. O>entu Bhaskara Rao Sfidayatullah J. 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1g64l under s. 7 ( d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.