LexN.SATYANATHAN versus K. SUBRAMANYAN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 83 circumspect enough to insert any such alternative 195~ clause as would have given the judgment or order of Tlze Sta~;-;,! JJ.ihar this Court the same effect as is contemplated by the M v. . terms of the surety bond quoted above. 011J !,~~;:er The appeal must therefore be dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed. N. SATYANATHAN v. K. SUBRAMANY AN AND OTHERS. [VIVIAN BOSE, JAGANNADHADAS AND SINHA JJ.] Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLlll of 1951), s. 7( 4)-Appellant entered into agreel'T}ent. with Central Government for conveying postal articles and mail bags through Motor Vehicle Sel'vtce on certain remuneration-Appellant whether disqualified for election to the House of People under s. 7(d) of .the Act. The question for determination in this appeal was whether the appellant was disqualified under s. 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for election to the House of the People. The material portion of s. 7(d) of the Act reads as follows: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being, a member of either House of Parliament .... (b) if, whe- ther by himself or by any person or body of persons in trust for him or for his benefir or on his account, he has any share or interest in a contract for .... the performance of any service undertaken by the appropriate Government". The appellant (a contractor) had entered into an agreement with the Central Government. The relevant portion of the said agree- ment was as follows: - "The contractor has offered to contract with the Governor- General for the provision of a MoMr Vehicle Service for the transit conveyance of all postal articles and mail bags from December 15, 1949 to December 14, 1952 and the Governor-General has accepted the offer. "The Government agrees to pay to the contractor Rs. 200 per month during the subsistence of the agreement 'as his remuneration for service to be rendered by him". Held that on the face of it the agreement was between two com- petent parties with their free consent, and there was a lawful cash consideration for it. The Appellant entered into the agreement with his eyes open knowing full well his rights and liabilities under the same. Si11/za J 1955 March 29 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] The case was a staightforward illustration of the kind of con- tract contemplated by s. 7( d) of the Act. At all material times the }If. Satya11athan _ v. appellant had been directly concerned, for his own benefit, in the /9jj K. Subramanyan contract of carrying mail bags and postal arti.cles entered into by and others him· with the Government in the Postal Department. Section 7 of the Act is clearly intended to avoid a conflict bet- ween public duty and private interests. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1954. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd January 1953 of the Election Tribunal, Yellore in Election Petition No. 35 of 1952. N. C. Chatterjee (A. N. ·Sinha and N. H. Hingo- rani, with him), for the appellant. C. V. L. Narayan, for respondent No. I. 1955. March 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant is disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for election to the House of the People, as held by the Election Tribunal, North Arcot, Vellore, by its orders dated the 20th January, 1953 in Election Petition No. 35 ol' 1952. The facts of this case are not in dispute and lie vvith- in a narrow compass. The appellant and respondents I to 3 contested the last general elections from the Dharmapuri Parliamentary Constituency in the dis- trict of Salem in the State of Madras. Respondents 4 to 10 who were added subsequently by an order of the Tribunal were also candidates for election. Their nominations also had been held to be valid but thev ultimately withdrew their candidature before the polling took place. The appellant was in due course declared to have been elected to the House of the People Thereafter; on the 5th March, 1952 the I st respondent filed an election petition before the Elec- tion Commission contesting the appellant's election 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 85 on the ground that the appellant was disqualified ~:!. under section 7(d) of the Act as, from t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.