KARBHARI BHIMAJI ROHAMARE versus SHANKER RAO GENUJI KOLHE & ORS.

KARBHARI BHIMAJI ROHAMARE versus SHANKER RAO GENUJI KOLHE & ORS.

Membership of the Wage Board did not constitute holding an office of profit under the State Government, as the honorarium and allowances paid were only sufficient to meet actual personal expenses incurred for attending meetings and did not result in any pecuniary gain. As such, respondent no. 1 was not disqualified from election under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: KARBHARI BHIMAJI ROHAMARE; Respondent No. 1: SHANKER RAO GENUJI KOLBE; Appellant Advocate: D. V. Patel; Appellant Advocate: K. Raj Chaudhry; Appellant Advocate: K. S. Bhadti; Appellant Advocate: S. L. Seti.a; Respondent Advocate: S. B. Wad; Respondent Advocate: M. S. Ganesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 November 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Office of Profit, Legislative Disqualification, Compensatory Allowance
Constitutional Law Election Law Office of Profit Legislative Disqualification Compensatory Allowance

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KARBHARI BHIMAJI ROHAMARE

Appellant

SHANKER RAO GENUJI KOLBE

Respondent No. 1

D. V. Patel

Appellant Advocate

K. Raj Chaudhry

Appellant Advocate

K. S. Bhadti

Appellant Advocate

S. L. Seti.a

Appellant Advocate

S. B. Wad

Respondent Advocate

M. S. Ganesh

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether membership of Wage Board is an office of profit under the State government, causing disqualification from election under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Membership of the Wage Board did not constitute holding an office of profit under the State Government, as the honorarium and allowances paid were only sufficient to meet actual personal expenses incurred for attending meetings and did not result in any pecuniary gain. As such, respondent no. 1 was not disqualified from election under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2605 of 1972 is also dismissed.