LOKNATH PADHAN versus BIRENDRA KUMAR SAHU

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 16-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

ll4 
LOKNATH PADHAN 
v. 
BIRENDRA 
KUMAR SAHU 
January 1.6. 1974 
[P. N. 
BHAGWATI AND 
l'. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act (43 ofl951) s. 116A-Electlon petiti'on challe,.g·· 
ing 
respondent's electlon ·to State Legislative Assembly-Dismissed-Dissolution 
of Assembly pending appeal to this Court-Effect on appeaf. 
The appellant filed an ekction petition challenging the election of the respondent 
to the State legislative Assembly alleging that there was a substising contract, entered 
into by the respondent in the course of his trade and business, with the State 
Government, for the e'l(ecution of works undertaken by the Government, and that 
therefore he was disqualified under s .. 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the contracts were not 
undertaken by the respondent in his individual capacity in the course of his trade and 
business but were on behalf of the Gram Panchayat of which he was the Naib Sarpanch, 
and also that the contracts had been fully carried out by the respondent long before 
the date of his nomination and that therefore, the Explanation to s. 9A was appli· 
cable and took his case out of tLe section. While the appeal was pending in thi'i 
C-0urt the State Legislative Assembly was dissolved under An. 174(2)(6) of the Con .. 
stitution. The respondent raised the preliminary objection at the hearing of the appeal 
that in view of the dissolution of the assembly it was academic to decide whether or 
not the respondent was disqualified under the section. 
· 
.o 
HELD : The law relating to abatement of election petitions is exhaustively dealt 
with in Chap.· VI of Part IV flf the Act and since there is nothing in the Act which 
provides for abatement of election petitions when the legislature is dissolved the dis· 
~o1ution does not result .in the abatement of an election petition. But the question 
in the present case is not whether the appeal has abated on the dissolution of the State 
Assembly, but whether in view of the dissolution of the State Assembly, it has be-
come academic to decide the appeal. In the instant case, even if it is found that the 
respondent was disqualified under s. 9A it would have no practical consequence, 
because invalidation of his election after the dissolution of the State Assembly, 
unlike the case of invalidation for corrupt practice, woulJ have no effect whatso-
ever. Therefore, the State Legislative assembly having been dissolved during the 
pendency of the appeal it is now wholly academic to consider whether the respon-
dent was disqualified under s. 9A at the date of his nomination and since that is the 
only ground on which the election of. the respondent is challanged it would be fl' 
tile to hear the appeal on n1erits. [ll7D-E; 1200] · 
ShN1dhan Singh v. Mahan Lal, [1959} 3 S.C.R. 417, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDlCTION : Civil Appeal No. 644 of 
1972 
From the judgment and order dated the !st February 1972 of the 
Orissa High Court in Election Petition No. 3 of 1971. 
Gobind Das, and P. H. Parekh for the appellant. 
Narayan Nettar, V.J. Francis and B. Kanta Rao, fo~ the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
BHAGWATI J.-This ajli'eal is preferred under s. 116A of the Repre-
sentation of.the Peo;>le Act, 1951 (hereinaf;er referred to as the Act) 
agamst the Judgment of the Onssa High Court d1smissmg an election 
petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the respon-
H 
dent to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from Melchhamunda cons-
tituency in Sambhali)ur di;trict of the State of Orissa. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
LOKNATH v. B. K. SAHU (Bhagwati, !.) 
11 5 
The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows: 
There were general elections to the Orissa Legislative Assembly some-
times in the beginning of March 1971. The last date for filing nomina-
tion papors was fixed on 7th February, 1971 and on or before that date 
the appellant and the respondent both filed their respective nomination 
papers for the seat from Melchhamunda constituency. 
On 9th Fe-
bruary, 1971, which was the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination 
papers, the appellant raised an objection against the nomination of the 
respondent on the ground that he was disqualified under s. 9A of the 
Act. Section 9A provides inter a/ia that a person shall be disqualified 
if, and for so long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him i

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