KARTAR SINGH BHADANA versus HARI SINGH NALWA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 27-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARTAR SINGH BHADANA 
v. 
HARi SINGH NALWA AND ORS. 
MARCH 27, 2001 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND 
Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 9-A-Disqualification 
under-Contract by appellant for execution of worlc undertaken by govem-
C 
ment-Not proved-Held, appellant not disqualified-Mines and Minerals 
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957-Section 18. 
First respondent, who had secured second largest votes in an elec· 
tion, filed an election petition before High Court challenging the election of 
the petitioner who was declared elected, on the ground that the appellant 
D 
was holding mining leases from the government at the time of scrutiny of 
the nomination papers. High Court set aside the election of the appellant 
and declared the respondent elected. 
E 
In appeal to"this Court, the appellant contended that he could not be 
disqualified from· contesting the election, since the government had not 
undertaken mining operations and the appellant was not carrying out the 
same for the government. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 
F 
does not operate to disqualify the lessee of a mining lease such as the 
appellant. There is nothing in the clause in the leases, which can support 
the submission that the appellant had entered into a contract for the 
execution of any works undertaken by the Government. It is only when the 
appropriate Government has undertaken works, such as the laying of a 
G 
road, the erection of a building or the construction of a dam, and has 
entered into a contract for the execution of such works that the contractor 
is disqualified. [795-G-H) 
2. In so far as is relevant to a case where it is alleged that a candidate 
holds a contract for the execution of works undertaken by an appropriate 
H 
Government, Section 9-A requires (a) that there should be a contract 
790 
f 
) 
KARTAR SINGH BHADANA v. HARi SINGH NALWA [BHARUCHA, J.] 
791 
entered into by the candidate; (b) that it should be entered into by him in 
. the course of his trade of business; (c) that it should be entered into with 
the appropriate Government; (d) that it should subsist; (e) that it should 
relate to works undertaken by that Government; and (I) that it should be 
for the execution of such works. The provisions of Section 9-A disqualify a 
citizen from contesting an election; a citizen may, therefore, be disqualified 
only if the facts of his case squarely fall within the conditions prescribed by 
Section 9-A. (794-C·D] 
C. V.K. Rao v. Dentu Bhaskara Rao, (1964] 8 SCR 152; Dewan Jayna/ 
Abedin v. Abdul Wazed Alias Abdul Wazad Miah & Ors., (1988) Suppl. SCC 
580; Ram Padarath Mahto v. Mishri Singh, (1961) 2 SCR 470; B. 
lAkshmikantha Rao v. D. Chinna Mallaiah, AIR (1979) AP 132 and Ranjeet 
Singh v. Harmohinder Singh Pradhan, (1999) 4 SCC 517, referred to. 
Black's Dictionary of Law, Fifth Edition, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6931 of 2000. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2000 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court .in E.P. No. 9 of 2000. 
Ashok H. Desai, Amarendra Sharan, Irshad Ahmad, Ms. Madhu Sharan, 
Anwar Khan and Shree Prakash Sinha for the Appellant. 
E 
M.L. Verma, Prashant Kumar, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Prasenjit Keswani, 
Joseph Pookkatt, Gaurav Aggarwal and G.K. Bansal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. The appellant and the respondents were candidates 
from the Smalkha constituency at the general election to the Haryana Assem-
bly held on 22nd February, 2000. The appellant secured the largest number 
of votes, namely 37,174 and he was declared elected. The first respondent 
secured 26,159 votes. The first respondent challenged the election of the 
appellant by filing an election petition in the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana. He contended that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers 
the appellant held from the appropriate Government, that of the State of 
Haryana, five leases for the extraction of major and minor minerals ll!ld that, 
therefore, he was disqualified from contesting the election. The High Court 
upheld the contention holding that "a mining contract or a mining lease is 
F 
G 
H 
+ 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
a contract to execute a Govenunent work on behalf of the Govenunent and 
it is covered under Section 9-A of the Act", the Act being the Representation 
> 
of Peo

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