SATYA DEV BUSHAHRI* versus PADAM DEV AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 25-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SATYA DEV BUSHAHRI* 
v. 
PADAM DEV AND OTHERS. 
[MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE 
and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J 
549 
Government of Part C States Act (XLIX of 1951), ss. 8 and 
17-Whethe<F exclude the application of s. 7(d) of the Representa-
tion of the People Act 1951 to the elections relating to Part C States 
-Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951), ss. 33(2), 123 
(8)-Proposzng or seconding a candidate by a person under s. 33(2) 
-Whether prohibited by s. 123(8)-Mere appointment of Govern· 
ment servant as polling agent-Whether infringes s. 123(8). 
Section 17 of Act XLIX of 1951 enacts that a person who would 
be disqualified to be chosen to either House under an Act of Parlia-
ment would be disqualified to be chosen for the State Assembly. 
Accordingly adopting the test that what would be a disqualification 
for being a member of either House of Parliament under Art. 
102 would under s. 17 be a disqualification for being chosen to the 
State Assembly, a person who had entered into contracts 
for the 
supply of goods 
not with the Central Government but with the 
State Government (in the present case Himachal Pradesh) would 
not be disqualified for being elected to either House of Parliament 
and would in consequence not be disqualified for being elected to 
the State Legislative Assembly of Part C State. 
Section 7 ( d) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 
1951) was not in terms extended to elections in Part C States and 
came 
in only 
with the qualifications mentioned in s. 17 of Act 
XLIX of 1951. 
Section 17 of Act XLIX of 
1951 
read in conjunction with 
s. 8 of the same Act cannot be construed as 
excluding the appli-
cation of s. 7 of Act XLIII of 1951 to elections held under the Act 
because in view of the general scheme underlying Act XLIX of 
1951 envisaged by ss. 6, 7, 8, 17 thereof it is not possible to read 
into the omission of Part II of Act XLIII of 
1951 under s. 8 of 
Act XLIX of 1951 an intention that the disqualifications 
mention-
ed in s. 7 of Act XLIII of 19.51 should not apply to elections held 
under the Act and therefore the disqualifications laid down in 
s. 7 of Act XLIII of 1951 must be held to be 
comprised 
within 
s. 17 of Act XLIX of 1951. 
Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII 
of 1951) conferred the privilege of proposing or seconding a candi-
date on any person wh_o was registered in the electoral 
roll and 
s. 123(8) of the said Act could not be construed as taking away 
that privilege. 
*Against the decision in this case, a review application was filed (Civil 
Miscellaneous Petition No. 641 of 1954). The decision on the said review 
app'ication is reported immediately after this case. 
1954 
Saljia Dev 
Bushahri 
v. 
J'adam Dev 
and Others. 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
Held, that as an abstract proposition of law the mere appoint-
ment of a Government servant as 
a polling agent is not in itself 
and without more, an infringement of s. 123(8). 
There is nothing in the Representation of 
the People 
Act, 
1951 or Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and 
Election 
Petitions) 
Rules, 
1951 barring the appointment 
of 
a 
Government servant as a polling agent and such appointment does 
not per se contravene s. 123(8). 
There is nothing in the nature of the duties of a polling agent 
which 
necessarily brings him within the 
prohibition enacted 
in 
that section. 
Raj Kmshna Bose v. Binod Kanugo (1954 S.C.J. 286) followed. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 52 of 1954. 
Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court on 
the 25th January, 1954, from Judgment and Order 
dated the 23rd May, 1953, of the Election Tribunal, 
Himachal Pradesh, Simla, in Election Petition No. 14 
of 1952. 
Hardayal Hardy and R. C. Prasad for the appel-
lant. 
Ved Vyas (S. K. Kapur and Naunit Lal, with him) 
for respondent No. 1. 
1954. May 
25. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-This is an appeal against 
the order of the Election Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh, 
dismissing Ele.ction Petition No. 14 of 1952. On 12th 
October, 
1951, 
five 
candidates 
(respondents 
1 to 5 
herein) were duly nominated for election to the Legisla-
tive Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh for 
the 
Rohru 
Constituency in 
Mahasu District. The 
polling took place on 23rd November, 1951, and on 
30th November, 1951, the first respondent was declared 
elected, he having secured t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.