KARTAR SINGH BHADANA versus HARI SINGH NALWA AND ORS.

KARTAR SINGH BHADANA versus HARI SINGH NALWA AND ORS.

Holding a mining lease from the government does not amount to undertaking works executed for the government under Section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951; therefore, the appellant is not disqualified.

Parties
Appellant: Kartar Singh Bhadana; First Respondent: Hari Singh Nalwa; Respondents: Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Setting Aside Election and Declaring Respondent Duly Elected
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Candidates, Mining Leases and Government Contracts
Election Law Disqualification of Candidates Mining Leases and Government Contracts

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kartar Singh Bhadana

Appellant

Hari Singh Nalwa

First Respondent

Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Setting Aside Election and Declaring Respondent Duly Elected

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether holding a mining lease constitutes a disqualification under Section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951

Ratio Decidendi

Holding a mining lease from the government does not amount to undertaking works executed for the government under Section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951; therefore, the appellant is not disqualified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court set aside
  • First respondent to pay appellant costs of the appeal quantified at Rs.25,000