ABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN versus SADASIVA TRIPATHI

ABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN versus SADASIVA TRIPATHI

The appellant was disqualified under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as there was a subsisting contract with the State at the time of filing nomination, and neither full performance nor mutual determination had occurred; the requirements of Article 299 regarding the execution of government contracts do not bar disqualification if the contract has been treated as binding by both parties.

Parties
Appellant: Abdul Rahiman Khan; Respondent: Sadasiva Tripathi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 July 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment on Election Petition No. 1 of 1967, Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification Under Representation of the People Act, Government Contracts, Article 299 Requirements
Election Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Disqualification Under Representation of the People Act Government Contracts Article 299 Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Rahiman Khan

Appellant

Sadasiva Tripathi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment on Election Petition No. 1 of 1967, Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract not entered in the name of the Governor, and not fully performed, disqualifies under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether Article 299 of the Constitution prevents disqualification where contracts are not executed as prescribed

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was disqualified under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as there was a subsisting contract with the State at the time of filing nomination, and neither full performance nor mutual determination had occurred; the requirements of Article 299 regarding the execution of government contracts do not bar disqualification if the contract has been treated as binding by both parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs