LALITESHWAR PRASAD SAHI versus BATESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 07-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
LALITESHWAR PRASAD SAHi 
v. 
BATESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS 
October 7, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Acr, 1951-S. 7(d)-Contract w;:h Gov-
ernn1ent not coniplying lV~!h provision of Art. 299 of the Constiturion-
Not subsequently ratified by Governn1ent-Whether disqualifies candi· 
date. 
In an election petition filed by the appellant, the respondent's election 
to the Bihar Legislative Assembly was challenged, mainly on the ground. 
that he was disqualified under s. 7(d) of the Representation of the 
People Act, !951, as he had entered· into a contract with the State 
Government which was subsisting on January 14, 1962, i.e. the date fixed 
for filing nomination papers. 
One S bad entered into a contract in 1951 with the State Government 
[or certain construction work and the respondent was working as a sub~ 
contractor under him. As there was delay etc. in the completion of the work 
by S, in exercise of a power reserved to the State GovernmenJ. in cl. 3(c) 
of the agreement with S, whereby the Government could, under certain 
circumstances, make alternative arrangements for the completion of the 
work, the Executive Engineer of the Government approached the res-
pondent to ascertain if he would complete the work instead. 
In a letter 
addressed to the Executive Engineers, the respondent offered to do the-
work on certain terms and this offer was accepted. 
Thereafter, various 
letters were exchanged with the respondent by the S.D.O. and the Executive 
Engineer about the progress of the work. 
However, after most of the 
work to be done by the respondent was completed,, S was restc>red as tho 
contractor and further correspondence about the \vork done by the res-
pondent and regarding the payment for it was conducted by the concerned 
officers of the State Government with S. The payment for this work remained 
outstanding on the date for filing nomination papers in January J 962. 
The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the respondents•· 
election to be void. 
But the High Court reversed this decision and held 
that the respondent had at all relevant times continued to be a sub-contractor 
of S, and that even assuming there was a contract bet\veen the respondent 
and the State Government, the alleged contract was void in view of Art. 
299 (I) of the Constitution. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (per majority) 
No contract between the first respondent and the Stale Government 
subsi9ted at the relevant time and the respondent was 
noot 
disqualified 
under s. 7(d). 
H 
The correspondence in the case clearly disclosed an agreement for th.,. 
execution of work between the Ex·zcutive Engineer and itfie respondent, 
But the fact that by virtue of cl. 3(e) of the contract with S, the Gov-
ernment could, under certain circumstances, enter into an agreement 
SUPREME COURT REPO!tTS 
(1966] 2 S.C.R. 
with someone else to do the work, did not dispense with the requirement 
.of compilance with !he provisions of Art. 29~. [70 E-F] 
The evidence on record showed that the State Government had chosen 
not to ratify the agreement with the respondent but to consider the original 
conract with S as still standing and to treat the respondent as a sub-
contractor working under S. [73 HJ 
The principle in Chatrurbhui Vithaldas Jasani's case ([1954] S.C.R. 817) 
that although a contract may not comply with Art. 299, such contract, 
being capable of ratification by the Government may still disqualify a 
person under s. 7(d), cannot be extended to cover a case where the 
Government has in fact not ratified the contract. To hold otherwise would 
be to substitute "agreement" for "contract" in s. 7(d) .. A mere agree-
ment entered into in contra;-ention of Art. 299 and in fact not ratified 
.cannot be caled a "contract" within s. 7(d). [72 A-BJ 
New Marz'ne Coal Co. (Bengal) v. The Union of India A.LR. 1964 
S.C. 152; State of W. Bengal v. B. K.. Monda! A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 779; 
referred to. 
(per Hidayatullah and Shah JJ., dissenting); 
A 
B 
c 
The available evidence clearly supported the case that there was a 
oonlrac~ directl:Y between the firiJtl respondent and the State for the 
exetution of certain construction work and not that the work was done 
D 
by the first respondent under a sub-contract from S. 
The court was only 
required to determine whether there was such a contract and \Vas not 
concerned with t

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