GULAM YASIN KHAN versus SURI SAHEBRAO YESHWANTRAO WALASKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 17-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
-. 
D 
·.-
F 
G 
GULAM YASIN KHAN 
v. 
SURI SAHEBRAO YESHWANTRAO WALASKAR & ORS. 
January, 17, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, 
V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
' 
Central Provinees Jc Berar Mu11icipa/itl<S Act, 1922 (C.P. Berar Act 2: 
of 1922), '· 15(1)--Candidate's son employed by Municipality-Whetlier 
dl•qualification, 
The appellant and respondent No. I were candidates for election os 
members ID the Municipal Committee, Malkapur. 
Respondent No. I 
objected, at the time of scrutiny, to the candidature. of the appellant on. 
the ground that the appellant had an interest in the Municipal Committee 
because his son was employed by the Committee and so, be w.. di!-
qualified from standing for election under s. IS (1) of the Central Pro-
vinces & Bernr Municipalities Act, 1922. 
The appellant disputed the 
validity of the objection by sayin,'l that his son was not staying with him 
aad had no connection with him whatsoever. The appellant and bia sons. 
were living in the same house, but each one lived in the portion allotted 
to him, and messed oeparately, Though tho ration-card w.. in the name 
of the appellant for the whole family and the income shown therein .. the 
income of the family Wlli only that of the appellant, the earnings of thit 
sons were not utilized for purposes of the family. The Supervising Officor 
overruled the objection. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 filed a writ peti-
tion in the High Court, in which the objection was upheld. In appeal to 
this Court, 
HELD : The mere relationship of a person with an employee of the· 
Municipal Committee does not justify the mferenco that 1uch a person has 
interest direct or indirect in his employment under the Municipal Com-
mittee. 
The interest to which s. 15 (1 ) of the Act refers cannot mem 
mere sentimental or friendly interest; 
it must mean 
interest which is 
pecuniary, or material, or of a similar nature. Hence the enquiry should' 
be not whether the appellant is interested in his son but whether the 
appellant is interested m the employment of his son. 
In the circumstances of this case. all that was proved was the mere· 
relationship between the appellant and his son who was the employee of 
the Municipal Committee. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court,. 
based on that relationship, was erroneous. 
[341 H; 342 E-F; 343 F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 936of1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 17, 1964 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nag-
pur in Special Civil Application No. 173 of 1964. 
M. C. Setalvad and A. G. Ratnaparkhl, for the appellant. 
K. L. Gauba, D. D. Verma, S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Ral, 
,4 
for the respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C. J. The appellant, Gulam Yasin Khan, and 
respondent No. !, Sahebrao Yeshwantrao Walaskar, were candi-
339 
' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966) 3 S.C.R. 
dates for election as members to the Municipal Committee, Malka-
pur, District Buldana, from Ward No. 17. The date fixed for 
filing the nomination papers was 16th March, 1964, and the date 
for scrutiny was 18th March, 1964. Both the appellant and respon-
dent No. I had filed their nomination papers as required by the 
relevant Rules. 
When the stage of scrutiny arrived, respondent 
No. I objected to the validity of the candidature of the appellant. 
He alleged that the appellant's son Khalildad Khan was a Moharir 
on Octroi Naka employed by the Municipal Committee; as such, 
he was a servant of the Committee. According to respondent No. I. 
the employment of the appellant's son by the Municipal Committee 
showed that the appellant had an interest in the Municipal Com-
miltee; and so, he was disqualified from standing for election under 
section 15(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalitica 
Act, 1922 (No. II of 1922) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The 
appellant disputed the validity of this objection. 
He alleged that 
his son was not staying with him and had no connection with him 
whatsoever. 
A 
B 
c 
On the 18th March, 1964, the Supervising Officer over-ruled 
D 
the objection raised by respondent No. I. He held that on the 
facts brought to his notice, s. 15( I) of the Act was inapplicable. 
Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. I filed a Special 
Civil Application No. 173 of 1964 under Articles 226 and 227 of 
the Constitution before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)

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