JUGAL KISHORE PATNAIK versus RATNAKAR MOHANTY

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 26-07-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~)-
JUGAL KISHORE PATNAIK 
v. 
RATNAKARMOHANTY 
July 26, 1976 
49 
[H. R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Representation of.the People Act, 1951-S. 9A-Contract signed as President, 
Gram Panchayat-Rejection of nomination paper-If vdid-lmproper 
rejec'-
tion-lf Courts could give relief under s. 100(1) (o). 
On the ground that there were subsisting contracts between him and the 
. State Government for execution of certain works, the nomination ·papers of the 
respondent for the general election to the State Assembly were r10jected by the 
Returning Officer under s. 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 
at the instance of one of the contesting candidates. In the election that ensued 
the appellant was declared elected. The respondent in his election petition 
contended that the works on account of which he had been disqualified had 
been undertaken by him, not in his personal capacity, but as the Sarpanch of 
the Gram Panchayat. The High Court held that the respondent was not dis-
qualified under s. 9A of the Act and declared the election void. 
On appeal, it was contended that the objections regarding the validity of 
the nomination papers of the respondent were raised in collusion with the 
respondent and a duly elected candidate should. not be made lo suffer because 
of an order made on such collusive objections. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I)( a) The appellant has clearly admitted in his written statement 
that objections which were filed about the validity of the respondent's nomination 
papers were not collusive but genuine. [53 G] 
(b) According to Sec. 100(1 )( c) of the Act, if the High Court is of the 
opinion that any nomination had been improperly rejected, it shall declare 
the election of the returned candidate to be void. In view of the imperative 
nature of the provision, it is open to question as to whether courts can, in 
the event of an improper rejection of nomination, afford relief to the successful 
candidate on the score that the objections resulting in the improper rejection of 
nomination, were collusive. 
Whether the legislature would do something in the 
matter is essentially for the legisJ,\lture to decide. [53 G-H] 
(2) A perusal of one of the disputed items shows that the tender ill 
respect of the work was accepted on behalf of a Cooperative Society of which 
the respondent was the President. It was not the respondent but the Society 
Which entered into contract for the execution of the work and he signed the, 
documents in his capacity as President of the Society. The contract was not 
subsisting on the date of filing of the nomination paper. In respect of anbther 
item the contract was not entered into with the respondent in his personal 
capacity but the work bad) to be ·executed by the Gram Panchayat. [54 F-G] 
Krishna Iyer J. (concurring) 
( 1) Jn the instant case the Returhing Officer was taken in by the specious 
plea that the respondent had subsisting contracts with the State Government 
and rejected h!s nomination papers. Its aftermath was that the people's verdict 
ha~ ~en stult1fie~. 
~ad ~ere been any procedure for quick determination of 
ob1ections to nommations with early appellate finality attached to it the lurking 
danger of the whole process being ultimately baulked on account df antecedent 
•fficial error would not have arisen. [56 CJ 
.J-. 
(2) The ambiguity in s. 9A, especially as to how long and in what sense 
can a contract be. said to be subsisting envelopes the disbarment provision with 
subtle_ legal quest10ns such as : how long does a contract subsist ? · •Is every 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1977) 1 S.C.R. 
liability ~~ising on a breach of contratt a claim under the comract attracting 
the prov1s10ns of s. 9A? If Government money is involved in the execution 
of the work does the contract necessarily become one with Government ? It 
is very desirable that the disqualificatory net should not be cast too wide to 
disfranchise innumerable persons and must be easy of ascertainment if 
uncertainty is not to overhang elections. 
(56 E-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 910 of 1970~ 
(From the Judgment and order dated 
16-6-1975 of the Orissa 
High Court in Election Petition No. l /7 4). 
D. P. Singh, R. P. Singh, Rajiv Dutta, Mrs. Ni/ma, L. R. Singh and 
R. K. Jain, for the Appellant. 
Santosh Clzatferjee, G. S. Chaterjee and D. P. Mukherjee, for the 
Respondent

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