KARBHARI BHIMAJI ROHAMARE versus SHANKER RAO GENUJI KOLHE & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 18-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
KARBHARI BHIMAJI ROHAMARE 
v. 
SHANKER RAO GENUJI KOLBE & ORS. 
November 18, 1974 
[A. A.LAGmISWAMJ AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
753 
~o/ding office of profit under the State Govt. membership of wage toard-
Whether office of profit-Constitution Articles 102 a11d 191. 
The first respondent was nominated as a Member of the Wage Board cons-
tituted under the provisions of the Wage Board Act. 
During the time the 
first respondent was a Member of the Wage Board. he filed his nomination for 
contesting election to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly. The appel-
lant contended that the membership of the Wage Board is an office of profit 
11!1der _the State ~emment and that, therefore. the respondent No. 1 was 
disqualified for election. Respondent No. 1 was entitled to draw travelling 
allowanee and daily allowance at the mte prescribed in Scale I of the Bombay 
Civil Service Rules. 
He was also entitled to receive Rs. 25 /- per day of the 
meeting of the Wage Board as honorarium. 
HELD : It was not disputed that the daily allowance and travelling allow-
ance payable to the members would not make the membership of the Wage 
Board an office of profit. The whole controversy ,centres round the hono-
rarium payable ·to the members of the Wage Board. The matter must be 
considered as & matter of substance rather than of form. 
The daily allowance 
was Rs. 18 whether the meeting was held at Bombay. Poona. Aurangabad or 
Kopargaon. The first respondent's evidence was that when he went to Bombay 
for attending the meetings of the Wage Bo&rd he had to spend Rs. 20/- as 
Taxi fare, Rs. 25 /- for breakfast. lunch and dinner. and Rs. 40/- for lodging. 
He seems to have been staying in a modest hotel. After an elaborate discm-
sion of the entire evidence the learned High Court Judge accepted the evidence 
of the first respondent that he had to spend Rs. 20/- for taxi fare and that 
hotel charges for a common room varied from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 16/- and for 
a single room from Rs. 28/- to Rs. 30/- and that the aggregate of'the hono-
rarium and the daily allowance payable to the first respondent was hardly suffi-
cient to meet the personal expenditure incurred for the purpose of attending 
the meeting in Bombay and simply because he was paid both the honorarium and 
daily allowance it coold not be said that he was .making any pecuniary gain 
thereby. The question has to be looked at in a realistic way. 
The payments 
made to first respondent cannot ·be a sou.rce of profit unless he stayed with 
some friends or relatives or stayed in a Dharamshala. The first respondent, 
therefore, did not hold an office of profit. The case of Mahadev v. Shantibhai 
distinguished. [756D; 758E-F; 759A-G] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 1972. 
Appeal_ from the J?dgment & Order dated the 22nd September, 
1972 of the Bombay High Cour. 1 E. P. No. 1 of 1972. 
G 
V. M. Tarkunde, D. V. Patel, K. Raj Chaudhry, K. S. Bhadti and 
H 
S. L. Seti.a, for the appellant. 
V. S. Desai, S. B. Wad and M. S. Ganesh, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. In the election to the Maharashtra State Legis-
lative Assembly held on March 7, 1972 the 1st respondent was dec-
lared elected from Shirdi Constituency. The appellant, a voter from 
that constituency filed an election petition .questioning election of the 
1st respondent on two grounds : one was that the successful candidate 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975]2 s.C.R. 
had committed several corrupt practices, the other that the election, was 
liable to be set aside because he 'Yas disqualified for election as he was 
holding an office of profit under the State Government as a member of 
the Wage Board for the Sugar'Industry constituted by the Government 
of Maharashtra under section 86-B of the Bombay Industrial Relations 
Act, 1946. The only question argued before this Court was the 2nd 
ono. 
February 8, 1972 was the last date for filing .nominations and 
February 11, 1972 the last date for withdrawal of candidature. The 
1st respondent resigned as a member of the Wage Board on February 
20, 1972 and the letter of resignation was received by the concerned 
authorities on February 22, 1972. 
The Wage Board to which the 1st rnspondent was nominated as a 
member on 13th April 1971 was constituted under the provisions of 
Chapter 12A of that Act int:oduced by the Amending Act No. 43 of 
1948. Under 1~ection 86C the State Governmen~ may ma

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