SATYA DEV BUSHAHRI versus PADAM DEVAND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 18-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
Satya Deu 
Bushahri 
v. 
Padam Dev 
and Others. 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
Application for review of the Judgment of this 
Court in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1954. 
N. C. Chatterjee ( G. C: Mathur, with him) for the 
petitioner. 
Veda Vyas 
(S. K. Kapoor and Naunit Lal, with 
him) for the respondent. 
1954. October 18. 
The Judgment of 
the Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-This is an application for 
review of the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal 
No. 52 of 1954. That was an appeal against an order 
of the Election Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh (Simla), 
dismissing a petition 
to set aside the election of the 
respondent 
to 
the 
Legislative 
Assembly, 
Himachal 
Pradesh, from the Rohru Constituency. Two points 
were raised at the hearing of the appeal before us : 
One was that the respondent was di.sqmlified for elec-
tion to the Assembly under section 17 of Act No. XLIX 
of 1951, read with section 7( d) of Act No. XL!II of 1951, 
by reason of the fact that he was interested in contracts 
for the supply of Ayurvedic Medicines to the Himachal 
Pradesh Government, 
and 
the other, 
that 
he 
had 
appointed Government servants as polling agents, and 
had 
thereby 
contravened 
section 
123(8) 
of 
Act 
No. XLIII of 1951. 
On the first question, we held that, on a true construc-
tion of section 17, what would be 
a disqualification 
for election to either House of Parliament under article 
102 would, under that section, be · a disqualification for 
election to the Legislatures of Part C States, and that 
the disqualification under section 7(d) of Act No. XLIII 
. of 1951 
would accordingly 
be .a disqualification under 
section 17 of Act No. XLIX of 1951. A further contention 
. was then raised on behalf of the respondent that even 
if section 7(d) were to be imported into section 17, that 
would µot disqualify him, because under that section,' 
.. the· disqualification must. be to being electe_d 
to either 
House of Parliament, and that under sections 7 and 9 
of_ Act No, XLIII of 1951, a contract to operate. as a' 
disqualification to the election .to either House of Par-
liament must be with the Central Government, whereas 
. 
). 
• • 
-
-
-
'J 
·s.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
563 
the contracts of the respondent were with the Govern-
ment of Himachal Pradesh. 
The 
answer 
of 
the 
petitioner to this contention was that under article 239 
the administration of Part C States was vested in the 
President acting through the Chief Commissioner or 
the Lieutenant-Governor, and that the contracts of the 
respondent 
with the 
Chief Commissioner, Himachal 
Pradesh, must be held to be contracts with the Central 
Government. We, however, disagreed with this con-
tention, and held that article 239 had not the effect of 
merging States 
with 
the 
Central Government, 
and 
converting contracts with the States into those with 
the Central Government. 
In this application, Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the 
petitioner invites our attention to the definition of 
"Central Government" in section 3(8) (b) (ii) of the 
General Clauses Act. It is as follows : 
"Central Government" shall in relation to anything 
done or to be done after the commencement of the 
Constitution, mean the President ; · and shall include 
in relation to the administration of a Part C State, the 
Chief Commissioner or Lieutenant-Governor or Govern-· 
ment of a neighbouring State or other authority acting 
within the scope of the authority given to him or it 
under article 239 or article 243 of the Constitution, as 
the case may be." 
He argues that by force of this definition, contracts 
with the Chief Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh 
must be treated as contracts with the Central Govern-
ment, and that in consequence, the respondent was 
disqualified 
for 
election 
under 
section 
17 
of Act 
No. XLIX of 1951, read along with section 7(d) of Act 
No. XLIII of 1951. 
As against this, Mr. Veda Vyas for the respondent 
relies on the definition of "State" in section 3(60)(b) 
. of the General Clauses Act, which runs as follows : 
"State Government" as respects anything done or: 
to be done after the commencement of the Constitution, 
· shall mean, in a Part A State, the Governor, in a Part 
B State ,the Rajpramukh; and in a Part C State the 
'Central Government." 
1954 
Satya Dev 
Bushahri 
v. 
Padam Dev 
and Others. 
Venkatarama 
Ayyar J. 
1954 
Snt)'a Dev 
Bushahri 
v 
Padam Dev 
and Others. 
V enkatarama 
Ayya' J. 
564 
SUPREME C

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