ASHOK KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA versus AJOY BISWAS AND ORS.

ASHOK KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA versus AJOY BISWAS AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent, as Accountant-in-charge of Agartala Municipality, was at the relevant time holding an office under a local authority, not under the government. The control exercised by government (such as confirmation of appointments or dismissals) was not sufficient for disqualification under Article 102(1)(a). Therefore, respondent No. 1 was not disqualified and his election stands.

Parties
Appellant: Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya; Respondent No. 1: Ajoy Biswas; Respondent: Agartala Municipality; Respondent: State Government of Tripura
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 November 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gauhati High Court (election Petition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Office of Profit, Disqualification of Members of Parliament, Interpretation of Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a)
Constitutional Law Election Law Office of Profit Disqualification of Members of Parliament Interpretation of Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a)

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya

Appellant

Ajoy Biswas

Respondent No. 1

Agartala Municipality

Respondent

State Government of Tripura

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gauhati High Court (election Petition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Accountant-in-charge of Agartala Municipality holds an office of profit under the Government of Tripura within the meaning of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether respondent no. 1 was disqualified from being elected as Member of Parliament

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the respondent, as Accountant-in-charge of Agartala Municipality, was at the relevant time holding an office under a local authority, not under the government. The control exercised by government (such as confirmation of appointments or dismissals) was not sufficient for disqualification under Article 102(1)(a). Therefore, respondent No. 1 was not disqualified and his election stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 was not disqualified from filing his nomination; his election is valid.