SH. AKLU RAM MAHTO versus SH. RAJENDRA MAHTO

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 01-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
. SH. AKLU RAM MAHTO 
v. 
SH. RAJENDRA MAHTO 
APRIL 1, 1999 
B 
{MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHARANDK. VENKATASWAMI. JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951: 
I 
Section 10-Election-Disqualification of candidates-Khalasi and 
C Meter Reader-Filing of nomination papers for Assembly election-Returning 
officer-Rejecti<?n of nomination papers on the ground that they were 
'managing agents' of the Conipany-On challenge,. High Couri set aside the 
election holding that the nomination papers were wrongly rejected-On 
appeal, held both the posts are non-executive posts and were not entrusted 
D 
with the affairs of rhe Company-Thus the candidates cannot be considered 
as 'managing agent: 'Secretary' or 'manager' rejection of nomination papers 
wholly erroneous. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 191 (1) (a)-'Persons holding 
office of profit under Government of Jndia'-Disqualified for being members 
E of Legislative Assembly!Council-Khalasi or Meter Reader-Not .subject to 
control of Central Government-Power of appointment and removal not 
exercised by Central Government-Held, not an employee under Government 
-Thus not disqualified for being elected to Legislative Assembly/council. 
The respondents were working as Khalasi and Meter Reader in the 
F 
bokaro steel plant .of steel Authority of India. Appellant and respondents 
filed their nomination papers for assembly elections. The Returning Officer 
rejected the nomination papers of respondents on the ground that they were 
the managing agents of the Steel Plant and hence they were disqualified 
under section 10 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Consequently, 
G appellant was elected to the Assembly constituency. On challenge, High 
court set aside the election of the appellant otl the ground that the nomination 
papers of respondents were wrongly rejected. Hence the present appeals. 
The contention of the appellant was that as the respondents were 
holding the office of profit under the Central Government, their nomination 
H papers were rightly rejected as the provisions of Article 191 (l)(a) of 
362 
·' 
A.R. MAHTO v. R. MAHTO 
363 
Constitution was attracted. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High court was Justified in holding that the nomination 
papers of the two respondents were wrongly rejected and hence the election 
A 
of the appellant was required to be set aside under Section 100 of the B 
Representation of the people Act, 1951. (370-H; 371-A-BJ 
2. The order of the Returning officer holding the nomination papers 
filed by respondents invalid on the ground that they were employees of the 
Steel Plant and they are the managing agents of the Steel plant is, on the 
face of it, unsustainable. The posts of Khalasi and Meter Reader are non-
C 
executive posts. Section 10 disqualifies only the managing agent, secretary 
or Manager of any company, in the capital of which the appropriate Government 
has not Jess than 25% share holding. Obviously, neitlter of them is either 
secretary or manager, A Managing agent is a person who has been entrusted 
with the management of the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs 
of a company. Quite clearly, neither of the respondents is in - charge of the D 
affairs of steel plant and cannot be considered as managin"g Agent of the 
Bokaro Steel plant. The rejection of the nomination papers of the two 
respondence was , therefore, wholly erroneous. (365-E-H; 366-E] 
3. The respondents cannot be considered as holding an office of profit 
under the Central Government. The steel plant is under the management E 
and control of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. This is a company incorporated 
under the Companies Act. Undoubtedly, its shares are owned by the Central 
Government. The Chairman and the Board of directors are appointed by the 
president of India. However, the appointment and removal of workers in Steel 
Plant is under the control of the Sted Authority of India Ltd. 
Their remuneration is also determin\!d by the Steel Authority of India 
Ltd, The functions discharged by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. or by the 
steel plant cannot be considered as essential functions of the Government. 
Amongst the objects of the Steel Authority of India of India Ltd. set out in 
F 
the Memorandum of Association are to carry on in India or elsewhere the G 
trade or business of manufacturing, prospecting, raising, operating; buying, 
selling, importing, exporting, purchasing or otherwise dealing in iron and 
stee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.