LexU.C. RAMAN versus P.T.A. RAHIM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 909 U.C. RAMAN v. P.T.A. RAHIM AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5509 of 2012) AUGUST 01, 2014 [R.M. LODHA, CJI AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) - Disqualification -to contest Legislative Assembly election - By · the reason of holding 'office of profit' (i.e. post of Chairperson C of State Haj Committee) - Held: 'Office of profit' means an · office capable of yielding pecuniary gain - 'Profit' would not include status and influence - The candidate not liable to be disqualified, because he was in receipt of only TA and daily allowances which are only compensatory in nature - D Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 2006 - Haj Committee Act, 2002 - s.3. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. An 'office of profit' is an office which is E capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. The word 'profit' would not include status and influence etc., besides the pecuniary profits. [para 20] [919-F] 2. As per the evidence on record the first respondent F was neither in receipt of any pay, salary, emoluments, remuneration or commission, nor anything of such nature was payable to him. He was in receipt of only TA and daily allowance which are compensatory allowance and these alone were 'receivable' also. [para 12] [917-C-D] G 3. The inclusion of Haj Committee of India constituted u/s 3 of Haj Committee Act, 2002 within the purview of s.3 of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 909 H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 $.C.R. A 1959 would not be of any consequence because the first respondent happened to be Chairperson of the State Haj Committee of Kerala and the allowances admissible to the Haj Committee of India have not been shown to be same as that for the State Haj Committee. [para 14] [917· B H; 918-A-B] Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 266 = 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR110; Ravanna Sabanna vs. ·G.S. Kaggeerappa, AIR 1954 SC 653; Shivamurthy Swami C lnamdar etc. vs. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa etc.1971 (3) SCC 870; Gajanan Samadhan Lande v. Sanjay Shyamrao Dhotre (2012) 2 SCC 64= 2011 (13) SCR 395 - relied on. Gunigobinda Basu vs. Sankari Prasad Ghosal and Ors. 1964 (4) SCR 311; Bihari/al Dobray vs. Roshan Lal Dobray, ' D 1984 (1) SCC 551= 1984 (1) SCR 877; Pradyut Bordoloi vs. E F G H Swapan Roy 2001 (2) SCC 19= 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 525 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1964 (4) SCR 311 referred to Par1:t 11 1984·(1) SCR 877 referred to Para 11 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 525 referred to Para 11 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 110 relied on i Para 11 2011 (13) s ~ 395 relied on Para 15 1911 (3) sec 870 relied on Para 15 AIR 1954 SC 653 relied on Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5509 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.04.2012 in Election • • U.C. RAMAN v. P.T.A. RAHIM 911 Petition No. 4 of 2011 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. A T.R. Andhyarujiriam, Zulfiker Ali, Faisal M. Aboobaker, Soumik Ghoshal, P. George Giri for the Appellant. V.A. Mohta, Hari Kumar G., (for A. Venayagam Balan) for the Respondents. · B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. The only issue falling for consideration in this Appeal filed under Section 116A read with C Section 116B of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is whether for the purpose of Article 191 (1 )(a) of the Constitution of India, the first respondent held an office of profit under the Government of India and for that reason his nomination ought to have been rejected by the returning officer and the High Court 0 should have set aside his election as a member of Kerala Legislative Assembly for which he was declared elected on 13.5.2011. 2. At the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers, the appellant as well as one another candidate raised objections E against acceptance of nomination of the first respondent by pointing out to the returning officer that the first respondent was disqualified to contest the election to the Kera la· Legislative Assembly by reason of his holding an 'office of profit' under the State Government namely the post of Chairperson of State Haj F Committee. The returning officer rejected the objections. In the election, first respondent secured highest number of votes ·followed by the appellant and was declared elected. Undisputedly, the first respondent had been nominated by the State Government as one o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.