RAM PADARATH MAHTO versus MISHRI SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 17-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

November r7. 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAM P ADARATH MAHTO 
v. 
MISHRI SINGH & ANR. 
[1961] 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Election -
Disq11alification-Contract with Govemment for 
stocking foodgrains-W hethe7 for performance of services 11ndertaken 
by Government-Representation of the People Act, r95r (43 of r95r) 
s. 7(d). 
The appellant was a member of a joint Hindu family which 
carried on the business of Government stockists of grain under 
a contract with the Government of Bihar. His nomination for 
election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly was rejected on the 
ground that he was disqualified under s. 7(d) of the Representa-
tion of the People Act, 195r, as he had an interest in a contract 
for the performance of services undertaken by the Bihar 
Government. The appellant contended that the service under-
taken by the Government was the sale of foodgrains under the 
Grain Supply Scheme and the contract was not for the sale of 
such foodgrains and did not attract the provisions of s. 7(d). 
H e/d, that the contract was not one for the performance of 
any service undertaken by the Government and the appellant 
was not disqualified under s. 7(d). A contract of bailment which 
imposed on the bailee the obligation to stock and store the 
foodgrains in his godowns was not a contract for the purpose 
of the service of sale of grain which the Government had 
undertaken. 
The Government had undertaken the work of 
supplying grain but the contract was not one for the supply of 
grain. 
N. Satyanathan v. K. Subramanyam, (19551 2 S.C.R. 83 and 
V. V. Ramaswamy v. Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli, (1933) 8 
E.L.R. 233, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPEI.LATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
388 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated February 3, 1959, of the Patna High 
Court in Elect.ion Appeal No. IO of 1958. 
S. P. Varma, for the appellant. 
L. K. Jha and D. Govardhan, for respondent No. I. 
L. K. Jha and K. J(. Sinha, for respondent No. 2. 
1960. November 17. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
471 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-I~ the appellant Ram Pada-
c960 
rath Mahto disqualified for membership of the Bihar 
Ram Padarath 
Legislature under s. 7(d) of the Representation of the 
Mahto 
People Act, 1951 (hereafter called the Act)? That is 
v. 
the short question which arises for our decision in the 
Mishri Singh 
present appeal by special leave. The appellant was 
& Am. 
one of the candidates for the Dalsinghsarai Constitu-
. --
ency in the District of Darb hang a in Bihar for the Ga;cndragadkar l · 
State Legisfo,ture. The said Constituency is a Double-
Member Constituency; it was required to elect two 
members, one for the general and the other for the 
reserved seat for scheduled castes in the Bihar Legis-
lative Assembly. It appears that the said Constitu-
ency called upon voters to elect members on January 
19, 1957. January 29, 1957 was fixed as the last date 
for the filing of the nomination papers. The appel-
lant filed his nomination paper on January 28, 1957, 
and on the next day seven other members filed thei;r 
nomination papers. On :February 1, 1957, the 'nomi-
nation paper filed by1the appellant was rejected by 
the returning officer on two grounds; he held that the 
appellant being an Inspector of Co-operative Societies 
was a Government servant at the material time and so 
was disqualified from standing for election. He also 
found that the appellant was a member of a joint and 
undivided Hindu family which carried on the-business 
of Government as stockist of grain under a contract 
between the Government of Bihar and a firm of the 
joint family known as Nebi Mahton · Bishundayal 
Mahto. Thereafter the election was duly held, and 
Mr. Mishri Singh and Mr. Baleshwar Ram, respon-
dents l and 2 were declared duly elected to the 
general and reserved sea\ respectively. The validity 
of this election was challenged by the appellant by 
his Election Petition No. 428 of 1957. To this peti-
tion he impleaded the two candidates declared to have 
been duly elected and five others who had contested 
in the election. Before the Election Tribunal the 
appellant urged that he was not in the employ of the 
Government of Bihar at the material time. He point-
ed out that he had resigned his job on January 13, 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
196• 
1957, and his resignation had been accepted on Janu-
Ram Padaralh ary 25, 1957, rel

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