SHRIKANT versus VASANTRAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 20-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I
A 
B 
SH RI KANT 
v. 
VASANTRAO AND ORS. 
JANUARY 20. 2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Ss. 2. 7, 8, 8~A, 9, 9-A, JO, 10-
C A and 116-A/General Clauses Act, 1987; Section 2(60): 
Election Petition-Election for legisla1ive Council-Re/urned candidate 
having subsisling comracls with a s/atulory body as on 1he dale of filing of 
nominalion--Disqualificalion--Held: Disqualificalion as defined under the 
provisions of the 1951 Act is very clear and specific-A candidate having a 
D subsisting contract with the Staie/State Government for supply of goods/works 
contracts could only disqualifY him from con'<'sting the election-Meaning of 
the term 'State/State Governmem · defined in the context of its ordinary and 
normal sense and not in the broader sense in /erms of Ar1icle 12 of the 
Constitution-Since the term 'S1a1e Governmenl' in its ordinary sense does 
not emphasize in its field a local/statutory authority. lhe slalutory authority in 
E question cannot be termed as Slate Governmem-Since all rights and 
obligations of the State Government under the contracts in question stood 
/rans/erred to a statutory body, no separate instruclionfor transfer/assignment 
necessary-The contracts though subsisting as on the date of filing of 
nomination were not conlrac/s with the Siale Governmenllappropriate 
F Government but with a stalutory body--Hence. 1he returned candidate did not 
incur any disqualification.under Section 9A of the Ac1--(:onsti1ution of India, 
1950--Articles 12, 58, 6./, 102 and 191. 
G 
H 
Disqualification--Seclion 9(A) of lhe Acl-Scope of 
Words and Phrases: 
'Appropriate Governmenl' and 'Suhsisting Con/rac/ '-Meaning of in 
lhe context of Section 9(A) of the Represen/ation of /he People Act, 1951. 
The first respondent, rival candidates, filed Election Petition in the 
496 
' 
SHRlKANT v. VASANTRAO 
497 
• ·-, 
High Court challenging the election ·of the appellant-returned candidate A 
under the provisions of Sections 9-A, 98, IOO(l)(a) and (d) and IOl(l)(a) 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was alleged that the 
appellant was a government contractor as on the date of filing of 
nomination as ·he had entered into three contracts for execution of works, 
with the State Government, and the contracts were subsisting as on the B 
dates of filing of nomination, scrutiny of the nomination papers and on 
declaration of result. According to the returned candidate one of the 
contracts stood transferred to Godawari Marathwada Irrigation 
Development Corporation (MGMIDC), a statutory body and other two 
contracts were already entered into with another statutory body, viz. 
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP). Therefore, as on the date of C 
filing of nomination, he had no subsisting contracts with the State 
Governments/appropriate Government and thus he did not suffer from 
any disqualification under Section 9-A of the 1951 Act. 
The High Court allowed the election petition and declared the 
election of the appellant void holding that GMIDC and MJP were statutory D 
corporations wholly controlled by the State Government and therefore fell 
within the expression 'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. 
The High Court also held that GMIDC and MJP being 'State' under 
Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, these statutory corporations could 
be termed as 'appropriate Government'. Consequently, the appellant had E 
subsisting contracts with the appropriate government ·and therefore, 
incurred disqualification under Section 9-A of the Act. He~ce the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. A person cannot be disqualified unJess he suffers a 
disqualification laid down in Article 191 of the Constitution or under 
Sections 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, I 0 or 10-A of the Representation of the People 
Act. It is not possible to add to or subtract from the disqualifications, either 
F 
on the ground of convenience, or on the grourids of equity or logic or 
perceived legislative intention. The disqualifications under Sections 8 to G 
IO-A of the Act are clear and very specific. 1507-A-B; 508-CI 
.~voli 8<1.rn v. Dehi Ghosa/, AIR (1982) SC 983; S. Narayana.mami v. 
G. Panneerse/\'l/111, AIR (1972) SC 2284 and N.S. Varadachari v. G. I·. Pai. 
AIR (1973) SC 38, relied on. 
H 
498 
SllPREME COLRT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Section 9-A only disqualifies person having a subsisting contract 
with the State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.