SOMNATH RATH versus BIKRAM K. ARUKH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 14-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SO MN A TH RA TH 
v. 
BIKRAM K. ARUKH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 
{DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.) 
Election Laws: 
C 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
D 
E 
Sec.9A-Election-Nomination papers-Disqualification of candidate--
Contract with Government for supply of goods or execution of any work 
undertaken by Government-Licensee under Public Distribution System-
Whether disqualified-Held, No. 
Sec.100(/)(c)-Election-Nomination papers-Improper rejection of-
Declaration of election invalid-Enquiry as to 'material effect of rejection'-
Requirement of-Held: improper rejection of a nomination paper by itself is 
a sufficient ground for declaring the election invalid-No enquiry as to 
material effect due to rejection required 
Sec. IOO(l)(d)-Declaration of election invalid-Enquiry as to material 
effect-Requirement of 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
"Works"-Scope of in the context of section 9A of the Representation 
of People Act, 1951. 
In the assembly elections for Bhanjnagar (Omsa)/Constituency, several 
persons, including appellant and respondents fded their nomination papers. 
The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 
G S,6 and 7. The nomination paper of respondent No. 7 was rejected on the 
ground that he was a dealer under the public distribution system. Respondent 
No. 1 was elected from the said constituency. Appellant challenged the 
election inter alia on the ground that rejection of the nomination papers of · 
respondents No. S, 6 and 7 was improper. High Court while holding that 
H respondent no. 7 was not disqualified under sec. 9A of the Representation 
410 
r
SO MN A TH RA TH v. BIKRAM K. ARUKH 
411 
of the People Act, 1951 dismissed the petition on the ground that there would A 
have been no "material effect" on the election by the presence of respondent 
~o. 7. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The nomination paper of respondent no. 7 was improperly B 
rejected by the Returning Officer. Consequently the election of respondent 
No. 1 - Returned candidate is set aside under sec. lOO(l)(c) of the 
Representation of the People Aci, 1951. (418-D-E] 
. 2.1. Respondent No. 7 does not suffer any disqualification for being 
chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly under sec. 9A of the Act C 
A person would be disqualified under sec. 9A of the Act if he has entered 
into a contract with the appropriate Government in the course of his trade 
or business for supply of goods or for execution of any works undertaken 
by Government. In the instant case, respondent No. 7 being a mere licensee 
under the Public Distribution System cannot be disqualified from contesti~g D 
the election. [418-A-B; 415-G] 
2.2. It cannot be accepted that under section 9A of the Act, the expression 
'works' would also include' schemes' of the type of Public Distribution 
System. (417-B] 
Dewan Joyna/ Abedin v. Abdul Wazed alias Abdul Wazed Miah & Ors., 
(1988] Supp. SCC 580, (1987) 2 SCALE 1447 and Ranjeet Singh v. 
Harmohinder Singh Pradhan, {1999) 3 SCALE 630, relied on. 
E 
3. The High Court having found rightly that the ground on which the 
Returning Officer had rejected the nomination paper of respondent No. 7, F 
did not d~ualify him from contesting the election, ought not to have proceeded 
any .further on "material effect" of rejection. The improper rejection of a 
nomination paper by itself and without anything more is a ground under 
sec.lOO(l)(c) of the Act to declare the election void. No enquiry as to "material 
effect" on account of the rejection of the nomination paper is required to be G 
made under Sec.lOO(l)(c) of the Act. The enquiry whether the result of an 
election has been materially affected insofar as the Returned Candidate is 
concerned is required in the cases covered by Sec.lOO(l)(d) of the Act 
(415-G-H; 416-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 335 of H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
· A 1999. 
.. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23 .12.98 of the Orissa High Court 
in E.P. No. 13 of 1995. 
S. Balakrisbnan, Debasis Mishra, Bhubnesh Singh and D.K. Thakur for 
B the Appellant. 
J.R. Das, K.K. Mahalik and K.N. Tripathy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his election 
petition, challenging the election of the returned candidate-respondent No. 1, 
vide order of the High Court dated 23rd of Dec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.