KANTA KATHURIA versus MANAK CHAND SURANA

KANTA KATHURIA versus MANAK CHAND SURANA

The appellant was not holding an office of profit under Article 191(1) of the Constitution as Special Government Pleader, as there was no permanent, substantive office independent of the holder. Even if an office of profit was held, Rajasthan Act 5 of 1969 validly removed the disqualification retrospectively. The election petition was not defective for failing to implead a candidate from another constituency.

Parties
Appellant: Kanta Kathuria; Respondent: Manak Chand Surana; Intervener: State of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 October 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Under S.116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disqualification for Legislative Assembly Membership, Office of Profit Under the State Government, Retrospective Legislation
Constitutional Law Election Law Disqualification for Legislative Assembly Membership Office of Profit Under the State Government Retrospective Legislation

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanta Kathuria

Appellant

Manak Chand Surana

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Under S.116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was holding an office of profit under Article 191(1) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the disqualification was retrospectively removed by Rajasthan Act 5 of 1969
  3. 3 Whether the election petition was defective for not impleading another candidate against whom corrupt practices were alleged

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not holding an office of profit under Article 191(1) of the Constitution as Special Government Pleader, as there was no permanent, substantive office independent of the holder. Even if an office of profit was held, Rajasthan Act 5 of 1969 validly removed the disqualification retrospectively. The election petition was not defective for failing to implead a candidate from another constituency.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Election petition dismissed