D. R. GURUSHANTAPPA versus ABDUL KHUDDUS ANWAR & ORS.

D. R. GURUSHANTAPPA versus ABDUL KHUDDUS ANWAR & ORS.

The respondent, after transfer of the undertaking to the government company, became an employee of the company, not the government. Holding an office in a government-owned company does not constitute holding an office of profit under the government for the purpose of Article 191(1)(a), especially in light of the limited disqualification prescribed under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The government company is a distinct legal entity and mere government control does not equate its employees to government servants for election disqualification purposes.

Parties
Appellant: D.R. Gurushantappa; Respondent No. 1: Abdul Khuddus Anwar; Respondents: Respondents 2 to 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Office of Profit Under Government, Disqualification for State Legislature Membership, Employment With Government Owned Companies
Constitutional Law Election Law Employment Law Office of Profit Under Government Disqualification for State Legislature Membership Employment With Government Owned Companies

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.R. Gurushantappa

Appellant

Abdul Khuddus Anwar

Respondent No. 1

Respondents 2 to 4

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employment in a wholly government-owned company constitutes holding an 'office of profit under the government' for disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether respondent no. 1 continued to be a government servant after the undertaking was taken over by the government-owned company.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, after transfer of the undertaking to the government company, became an employee of the company, not the government. Holding an office in a government-owned company does not constitute holding an office of profit under the government for the purpose of Article 191(1)(a), especially in light of the limited disqualification prescribed under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The government company is a distinct legal entity and mere government control does not equate its employees to government servants for election disqualification purposes.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.