DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDIN versus ABDUL WAZED ALIAS ABDUL WAZAD MIAH AND TWO OTHERS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 15-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDIN 
v. 
ABDUL W AZED ALIAS ABDUL W AZAD MIAH 
AND TWO OTHERS. 
DECEMBER 15, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 9-A-Elec-
tion-Disqualification on account of Government contract-Lease of 
ferry tolls under Sec. 8 of Northern India Ferries Act, 1878-Whether 
such contract an agreement for execution of works-Whether amounts 
to office of profit. 
Northern India Ferries Act, 1878: Section 8-'Contractor'-
Acquiring lease under Act-Nature of contract-Whether a works 
contract-Whether contractor holds 'office of profit'-Whether disen-
titled under the Representation of the People Act to stand for and contest 
an election to the House of People or the State Assembly. 
The first respondent filed an election petition before the High 
Court for setting aside the election of the appellant to the State Legisla-
tive Assembly under s. lOO(l)(c) of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951, contending that the rejection of his nomination papers by the 
Returning Officer was erroneous as he had, in fact, completed 25 years 
of age on the date of his nomination. 
The petition was opposed by the appellant contending that as the 
first respondent had not completed 25 years of age on the date of 
scrutiny of nominations, the nomination papers had been rightly re· 
jected, that as the first respondent had not subscribed the oath as 
required by Art. 173(a) of the Constitution, he was not qualified to 
contest the election, and that the first respondent was also disqualified 
to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of the State, as on the date of 
scrutiny of the nominations he had a subsisting contract entered into by 
him with the Government, under which he had been treated as a lessee of 
the Ferry for the period between 1.4.85 to 31.3.86. 
The High Court framed issues on the basis of pleas raised by 
parties and, after recording their evidence held that the first respondent 
had completed the age of 25 years on the date of scrutiny and, there· 
H fore, had necessary qualification for being a member of the Legislative 
370 
) 
' 
, 
) 
DEWAN JOYNAL v. ABDUL WAZED 
371 
Assembly, that the appellant had not proved that the first respondent 
had not subscribed the oath as required by law, and that as the first 
respondent had been relieved from the charge of the Government ferry 
with effect from 21.11.85, there was no subsisting contract between the 
first respondent and the Government on the date of scrutiny of nomina-
tions and, therefore, he was not disqualified under s. 9-A of the Act. It 
accordingly came to the conclusion that the rejection of the nomination 
papers filed on behalf of the first respondent was improper and set aside 
the election of the appellant. 
In the appeal before this Court, a further plea was raised on 
behalf of the appellant that the first respondent was also disqualified 
from contesting the elections as he held an office of profit under the 
State Government by virtue of the contract entered into by him with the 
State Government, even though the contract in question may not be one 
of those contracts specified ins. 9-A of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The first respondent was not disqualified for being 
chosen as a member of the State Legislature. The rejecti11n of his 
nomination papers was improper. The election of the appellant was, 
therefore, rightly set aside by the High Court, on the ground men-
tioned in Section 100(1)( c) of the Representation of the People Act 
1951. [387G-H] 
2.1 An analysis of s. 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951 shows that only in two cases a person would be disqualified if he 
has entered into a contract with the appropriate Government in the 
course of his trade or business which is subsisting on the date of scrutiny 
of nomination. They are (1) when the contract is one for supply of goods 
to the appropriate Government and (2) where the contract is for execu-
tion of any works undertaken by that Government. Unless the contract 
in question is one which clearly falls under s. 9-A of the Act it cannot be 
held that the person who is a party to the contract is disqualified for 
being chosen as a member of the State Legislature. l382F-G] 
In the instant case, the contract is not one for supply of goods to 
Government. The first respondent had acquired in the public auction 
the right to collect the toll by paying the amount offered by him u

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