PRADYUT BORDOLOI versus SWAPAN ROY

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 12-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PRADYUT BORDOLOI 
A 
v. 
SWAPAN ROY 
DECEMBER 12, 2000 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND SHIVA RAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 191 (l}(a)-Representation of 
People Act, 1951--Section 116A, 98(b), JO and 80181-Election petition-
Respondent employed as clerk in Coal India ltd.- -Whether can be disqualified C 
to contest election on the ground that he is holding office of profit- -Held, 
no- -Respondent was not holding an office of profit under the Government of 
India as the Government of India does not exercise any control on appointment, 
removal, service conditions and functioning of the respondent- His being a 
clerk in Coal India ltd. cannot bring any influence or pressure on him in 
his independent functioning as a member of legislative Assembly- -Assam D 
legislative Members (Removal and Disqualifications) Act, 1950. 
Words and Phrases· - 'office of profit'-Meaning of 
Respondent, an employee of Coal India Ltd., holding the post of Clerk 
Grnde I, filed his nomination paper for election to Legislative Assembly.' A' E 
filed a complaint against the candidature of the respondent saying that the 
respondent being an employee of Coal India Ltd., was holding an office of profit 
under the Government of India and thus was disqualified from contesting 
election under Article t 91 of the Constitution of India and under Section to 
of Representation of People Act, and was performing managerial functions 
in a company wherein the Government of India had not less than 25% shares. F 
Returning Officer upheld the objections and the nomination paper of the 
respondent was rejected. In the legislative assembly elections appellant was 
declared elected. 
Respondent filed election petition before the High Court challenging 
appellant's election. High Court allowed the petition, holding the election of G 
the appellant void on the ground that the nomination paper of the respondent 
was improperly rejected on the ground of disqualification because he was 
neither holding an office of profit under Government of India within the 
meaning of Article 19l(l)(a) nor was he a managing agent, manager or 
secretary of any company or corporation in the capital of which the H 
525 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Government of India had not less than 25% shares. In appeal to this Court, 
it was disputed that Coal India Ltd. is a private limited company with 100% 
share owned by Central Government, and that the President of lndi& does not 
have any control in the matters relating to appointment, removal and 
disciplinary control over the incumbents holding the posts below the Board 
B level, and that the salaries, emoluments and perks of such employees were 
payable from the funds of the Company which was not remunerated or 
augmented by the Central Government 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : No fault can be found with the finding arrived at by the High 
C Court that the respondent was not holding an office of profit under the 
Government of India and therefore no disqualification attached to him under 
Article 191(1) (a) of the Constitution. The Government of India do not exercise 
any control on appointment, removal, service conditions and functioning of 
the respondent. The respondent does hold an 'office' and there is 'profit' 
D attached to the office but such office of profit is not 'under the Government of 
India'. His being a clerk in Coal India Ltd. does not and cannot bring any 
influence or pressure on him in his independent functioning as a member of 
Legislative Assembly. The respondent was merely a Clerk Grade I. 
Occasionally in the absence of his senior officer on account of leave or 
absence, he exercised some supervis11ry function over his subordinates, but 
E this would not make him a manager of the Company. The respondent did not 
incur a disqualification under Section I 0 of Representation of people Act also. 
As the respondent's nomination paper was improperly rejected, the appellant's 
election was liable to be declared void without proof of the result of the election, 
in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, having been materially affected. 
F 
[533-G-H; 534-A, B, Cl 
2. The totality of the facts and circumstances reviewed in the light of 
the provisions of relevant Act, if any, would lead to an inference being drawn 
ifthe office held is under the Government The inquisitive over-view-eye would 
finally query: on account of holding of such office would the Government be 

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