KONAPPA RUDRAPPA NADGOUDA versus VISHWANATH REDDY & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 18-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
A 
B 
KONAPPA RUDRAPPA NADGOUDA 
v. 
VISHWANATH REDDY & ANR. 
July 18/19, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 9A-Agreements between: 
respondent's [inn and State Gov.ernnient for building a road and a dis--
pensary-work at first certified as co1npleted later certificates cancelled-
'Agreements containing claus.es 
requiring 
contractor to 
repair 
faulty 
work-if contracts subsisting on date of nomination-Respondents' part-
nership fir111 dissolved before no1ninatio11 without notice to Government-
C 
effect of . 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The appellant and the first respondent were candidates for election in· 
February, 1967 from the Yadagiri constituency which was won by the 
first respondent. 
The appellant challenged his election by a petition on. 
the ground that he was a partner in a firm which had two contracts with 
the State Government, one for the construction of a road and the other 
for the construction of a dispensary building, which were subsisting on 
the day when nominations were filed; he was therefore disqualified from 
being a candidate unde'.r s. 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951 and his election was void. 
The appellant also claimed that he was 
entitled to be declared elected as the votes cast in favour of the first res-
pondent must be regarded as thrown 
away. 
From the 
evidence led 
before the High Court it was clear that the first respond~nt had obtained 
certificates from officers of the State Government to the ·effect that the 
cont'racts were complere but that these c~rtificates were subsequently can-
celled as it was considered that the work \Vas not completed. 
After 
appraising the evid·ence, the High Court came to the conclusion that 
although some of the items from the two contracts might not have been·· 
completed, the contracts as a whole were substantiaily performed 
and, 
therefore, there was no bar to the candidature of the first 'respondent. It 
also held that although the agreements contained clauses for maintenance· 
and repairs over a period of time after the completion of the work of 
construction, 
th·~se did not have the· effect of making them subsisting, 
contracts. The High Court thc'rcfore dismissed the election petition. 
HELD : On appeal to this Court, 
The High Court was in error in holding that the contracts had been· 
fully p·erformed and s. 9A did not apply. 
The appeal must therefore be· 
allowed and the election of the first respondent declared void. 
Further-
more the votes caste in favour of the first respondent must be treated as 
thrown away and in the absence of any other contesting candidate, the· 
appellant declared elected [ 403 F, 404 B-C] 
(i) Taking the fact that some portion of the· original contracts re-· 
mained to be performed with the fact that under the contracts the con-
tractor was required not only to complete the original wdrk but to repair· 
defects or re-do something which he had not properly done, the matter 
must be regarded as falling within s. 9A of the Act. 
In the context of 
construction of buildings and roads, it is obvieus that if some part is· 
found defective and has to be done again, the contract of execution as 
such is still to be fully performed. It is posiible to describe the action 
taken as one to repair the defect, but in essence it is a part of the contract· 
396 
SUPREME COVRT REPORTS 
jl 969] I S.C.R. 
.of cx~cution, because nJ execution can be said to be proper or con1plcte 
A 
lill it is properly cxcculcd. [403 H-0] 
(ii) 1Jy.,re was no force in the conlenlion that under Art. 299 the 
contract in quc:.tion had to he signed by the Secrciary to the Government 
\vhercas in the present case it "'as signed by the 
Executive EnginC\:r. 
[403 GI 
Chatturbhuj J1i1haldas Jcsani v. Atforeshu•ar Parashran1 and 
Others. 
[19'4] S.C.R. 817, applied. 
(iii) 1be Jaw requires that a candidate should not have any interest 
in any contract v.·ith Government and therefore even a partner in a firm 
has an interest suffici-ent to atlrJct the provisions of s. 9A. 
l'hc fact that 
the partnership itself had hecn dissolved in the present case would have 
no effect upon the relations between the first respondent ancl the Go,·ern-
ment. 1403 HJ 
'lbe first respondent could not by a private <lisc;olution of the part-
nership escape his liability under the contract to the Gov-ernmcnl, and 
there was here no novation, because notice of the 
disso]ution was not 
g

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