LexP.H. PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN versus MR. P. VELDURAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 5 S.C.R. 254 P.H. PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN v. MR. P. VELDURAI (Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2009) APRIL 13, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 c s. 9-A read with G.O. No. 4682 (PWD) dated 16.11.1951 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu - Disqualification for Government contracts - Election to Legislative Assembly - Candidate filing nomination papers - Objections that the candidate had subsisting contracts with the government, thus, D disqualified for filing nomination papers and contesting election - Overruled by Returning Officer - Candidate declared elected - Writ petition challenging the election on the ground of the said disqualification - Dismissed by High Court - Held : On true interpretation of the Government Order dated 16.11.1951 only the Chief Engineer was competent to E terminate the contracts and, therefore, the termination of the contracts by the Divisional Engineer, which was subsequently ratified by the Superintending Engineer, cannot be treated as valid termination of contracts - On the date of submission of nomination papers as well as on the date of scrutiny thereof, F the contracts entered into by the returned candidate with the Government were subsisting and, therefore, he was disqualified from filing the nomination papers and contesting the election - The returned candidate having incurred disqualification under the provisions of s. 9A of the Act, his G election will have to be declared as illegal - Accordingly, it is declared that the returned candidate had incurred disqualification uls. 9A of the Act and, therefore, his election from the Constituency in question is declared to be illegal, null and void - Constitution of India, 1950. H 254 P.H. PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN v. MR. P. VELDURAI 255 CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950 A Article 162 - Issuance of Government Orders/Circulars - Extent of executive power of State - Explained - Held : In the instant case, there was neither any enactment nor any statutory rule nor any constitutional provision as to how the 8 contractor, who has entered ·into contracts with the Government, should be permitted to contest election, more particularly, when a request is made by the contractor to terminate his contracts so as to enable him to contest the election - There is no manner of doubt that in this branch of c jurisdiction there was absence of statutory enactment, regulations and rules and, therefore, the Government had all authority to issue Government Order dated November 16, 1951 to fill up the gaps - Government of Tamil Nadu, public Works Department GO No. 4682 dated 16.11.1951 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.9-A D The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate, the respondent, to the State Legislative Assembly, on the ground that on the date of filing of nomination papers i.e. on 17.4.2006, E the respondent had subsisting contracts with the Government and in the absence of termination of the said contract in accordance with the Government Order dated 16.11.1951, he was disqualified for submitting nomination papers and consequently, contesting the election. It was F the case of the election petitioner that he had filed objection before Returning Officer, but he overruled the same and accepted the nomination papers of the respondent. The High Court dismissed the election petition. Aggrieved, the election petitioner filed the appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Normally, the Superintending Engineer would be competent to terminate the contracts when H 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A breach of the terms and conditions is committed by a contractor .. However, in the instant case, the Court finds that the contracts were to be brought to an abrupt end because the respondent was intending to contest the election. Such an eventuality was never contemplated B under the contracts and the contracts entered into by the respondent with the Government could have been terminated only as per the terms and conditions stipulated in Government Order dated November 16, 1951. A reasonable reading of the stipulations and conditions C mentioned in the said Government Order makes it evident that only the Chief Engineer was competent to terminate the_ existing contracts where the contractor was desirous of contesting election. It is wrong to say that an instructi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.