RAJESHEKAR BASAVARAJ PATIL versus SUBASH KALLUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 08-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJESHEKAR BASA V ARAJ PATIL 
v. 
SUBASH KALLUR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 9A and JOO(J}(a)-Election 
to Assembly challenged on the ground of subsisting contract with Government 
A 
B 
on the date of election-Plea of returned candidate that prior to election C 
unilateral termination of contract sought by submitting letter and affidavit-
Petition dismissed by High Court-On appeal held, in the facts of the case 
letter and the affidavit proved to be interpolated and anti-dated-Contract 
legally and formally terminated only ajier date of election-Hence, returned 
candidate was disqualified to contest the election. 
Appellant challenged the respondent's election to Legislative 
Assembly on the ground that he was disqualified to contest the election 
as there subsisted a contract between him and the State. Respondent-
returned candidate claimed that he was not disqualified since before the 
date of election, on 11.8.1999 he had given notice of unilateral termination 
D 
of the contract and further on 13.8.1999 he filed an affidavit whereby he E 
made it clear that he had earlier made an application to terminate the 
subsisting contract between him and the State. Appellant alleged that the 
said documents were interpolated and anti-dated and were introduced on 
the record after the date of election i.e. 5.9.1999. In order to prove the 
falsity of the claim of returned candidate, appellant summoned PW2- F 
Executive Engineer in evidence, who deposed that he received a letter 
dated 11.8.1999, that on the original letter he had put the date of receipt 
as 14.9.1999 and the entry of its receipt was recorded in the Inward 
Register on 15.9.1999. PW4 deposed that formal permission for rescinding 
the contract was granted only on 5.9.2000. Returned candidate, in order 
'" 
to prove the genuineness of the letter and the affidavit, examined RW2, '-' 
who stated that he received the letter and acknowledged its receipt. The 
affidavit was not put to him to prove that he had acknowledged its receipt. 
Jn cross-exa.mination he admitted that normally letters are acknowledged 
by Manager in the office and it was not his normal duty to receive or 
141 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A acknowledge any letter or application. Returned candidate, in cross-
examination, stated tl!at he did not know as to who acknowledged the 
affidavit. High court accepted the letter and the affidavit as genuine 
documents as having been submitted on the dates mentioned on them, and 
held that there was unilateral and/or bilateral termination of contract 
B 
between returned candidate and Government and dismissed the election 
petition. 
In appeal to this Court, respondent contended that the letter was 
tendered with a desire to end the contract; that original records of Notary 
and initials put for acknowledgement of the affidavit go to show that it 
C was a genuine document preferred on the date shown; that genuineness 
of the letter is proved from the facts that in the affidavit it has been 
mentioned that he had already made earlier application to terminate the 
subsisting contract and in subsequent correspondence also there is mention 
of submission of letter dated 11.8.1999; and that since PW2 supported the 
case of returned candidate and still he was not cross-examined by the 
D appellant, the case of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Returned candidate suffered a disqualification under 
section 9A of Representation of People Act, 1951 for contesting the election 
E as the contract between him and the State subsisted for IO per cent of 
remaining work. His election is, therefore, liable to be set aside on the 
ground made out under Section 100 of tile Act. ( 160-F, G J 
F 
2.1. Appellant has satisfactorily proved his case that both the 
documents i.e. letter dated 11.8.1999 and affidavit dated 13.8.1999, were 
neither formally tendered nor officially received in the office of the 
Executive Engineer on the dates respectively shown on them. The 
respondent has miserably failed to dispel the doubt created on the fact 
and date .of submission of the letter and the affidavit. (156-D, El 
G 
,2.2. It cannot be said that in absence of cross-examination of PW2-
Executive Engineer, the case of the appellant that the letter dated 11.8.1999 
was an interpolated document should be rejected. The appellant had 

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