LexDAYANAND RAYU MANDREKAR versus CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DAY ANAND RA YU MANDREKAR v. CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR & ORS. JANUARY 18, 2007 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, DAL VEER BHANDARI AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ELECTION LAW: A B c Member of State Legislative Assembly - Election - Disqualification - Candidate holding 'office of profit' at the time of filing nomination paper - Candidates holding offices of Chairman, Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board and Chairman, Goa State Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance and D Development Corporation Ltd. - Under relevant rules, the said office bearers entitled to salary/honorarium and allowances - They were also availing facilities of mobile phone, residential telephone, chauffeur driven car, services of PA, a clerk, a peon etc. - HELD: Perquisites availed by candidates cannot be said to have been given to them by E way of compensatory allowance in terms of clause (9) of the Schedule to 1982 Act - Since by virtue of the rules, candidates were entitled to get salary or honorarium that by itself would show that they were not entitled to get protection under the 1982 Act - Whether the 1982 Act was adopted by State Assembly or not left open for consideration in appropriate case - High Court rightly held that candidates were F holding office of profit and as such were not entitled to contest election as they were disqualified - Government Territories Act, 1963 - ss. 3 and 14(1) - Goa Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1982-Schedule - Clause (9)- Goa Daman and Diu Khadi and Village industries Board Rules, 1967 - r. 7. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3578 of 2005. 979 H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.2005 of the High Court B of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa in E.P. No. 1/2002. WITH C.A. No. 3579 of2005. Dhruv Mehta, Jha and Y ashraj Singh Deora (for MIS. K.L. Mehta & Co.), for the Appellant. M.N. Krishnamani, Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, S.U.K. Sagar, Bina Madhavan, A. Venayagam, Vinayakam (for C MIS. Lav.yer's Knit & Co,), Sriniwas Khalap and Ashok Mathur for the Respondents. D The following Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER The appellants, in these two appeals, challenge the judgment in the Election Petition nos. 1 and 2 of 2002. In both these cases a common questions of law had arisen and, therefore, we heard the matter together and are disposing these appeals by way of a common order. The appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was elected to the Legislative Assembly E of State of Goa from Siolim constitutency in the election held on 30.5.2002, whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was elected from Vasco-da-·gan1a Assembly constitutency of the State Legislature. The election petitions were preferred by two unsuccessful candidates in the elections alleging that these two appellants were holding 'office of profit' F at the time when they contested the elections and, therefore, they were ineligible to be elected to the legislature. At the time of filing their nominations, the appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was the Chairman of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board of the State of Goa, whereas the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was the Chairman of the Goa State G Scheduled Ca:;tes and Other Backward Classes Finance & Development Corporation Ltd. of the State of Goa. The appellants in these two cases contended before the High Court that they were not holding an 'office of profit' and were not receiving any salary or allowances for the said post they held and by virtue of the provision contained in the Goa, Daman H and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] DAY ANAND RA YU MANDREKAR v. CHANDRAKANT 981 UTT AM CHODANKAR Act, 1982 (for short 'the 1982 Act'), the disqualification, if any, was A removed especially by clause (9) of the Schedule. The pleas set-up by the appellants were rejected and the High Court held that these appellants were holding the 'office of profit' and that they were not entitled to contest the election as they were disqualified and the election petitions were allowed and elections of appellants were set aside. B We have heard the counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed that the appellants were holding the office as alleged in the election petition, but contended that they were not receiving any C salary or allo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.