SHRIKANT versus VASANTRAO AND ORS.

SHRIKANT versus VASANTRAO AND ORS.

Statutory corporations such as GMIDC and MJP, though they may be 'State' for Part III of the Constitution, are not 'State Government' for purposes of Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Subsisting contracts with such statutory bodies do not constitute contracts with the 'appropriate government' and thus do not attract disqualification under Section 9A; the appellant did not incur any disqualification.

Parties
Appellant/returned Candidate: Shri Kant; Respondent/first Respondent; Election Petitioner: Vasantrao; Statutory Body: Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC); Statutory Body: Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision in Election Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Returned Candidates, Meaning of 'appropriate Government' and 'subsisting Contract' Under Representation of the People Act, Interpretation of State Government Vs Statutory Corporation in Indian Law
Election Law Constitutional Law Disqualification of Returned Candidates Meaning of 'appropriate Government' and 'subsisting Contract' Under Representation of the People Act Interpretation of State Government Vs Statutory Corporation in Indian Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shri Kant

Appellant/returned Candidate

Vasantrao

Respondent/first Respondent; Election Petitioner

Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC)

Statutory Body

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP)

Statutory Body

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision in Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsisting contracts with statutory corporations (GMIDC, MJP) constitute contracts with 'appropriate government' under Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, resulting in disqualification
  2. 2 Scope of 'State Government' and 'appropriate government' under Section 9A of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Statutory corporations such as GMIDC and MJP, though they may be 'State' for Part III of the Constitution, are not 'State Government' for purposes of Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Subsisting contracts with such statutory bodies do not constitute contracts with the 'appropriate government' and thus do not attract disqualification under Section 9A; the appellant did not incur any disqualification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order of the High Court allowing the election petition and declaring the appellant's election void is set aside.
  • The challenge to the election of the appellant is rejected.