LALITESHWAR PRASAD SAHI versus BATESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS

LALITESHWAR PRASAD SAHI versus BATESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS

No contract subsisted between the respondent and the State Government at the relevant time, and the respondent was not disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because the Government chose not to ratify the agreement and treated him as a sub-contractor under Saxena; a mere agreement not meeting Article 299 requirements and not ratified cannot be considered a 'contract' for disqualification.

Parties
Appellant: Laliteshwar Prasad Sahi; Respondent: Bateshwar Prasad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 October 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Patna High Court Election Appeal; Supreme Court Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Candidates, Article 299 Compliance, Subsistence of Government Contracts
Election Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Disqualification of Candidates Article 299 Compliance Subsistence of 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laliteshwar Prasad Sahi

Appellant

Bateshwar Prasad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Patna High Court Election Appeal; Supreme Court Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a candidate is disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for having a subsisting contract with the State Government not complying with Article 299 of the Constitution and not subsequently ratified by the Government

Ratio Decidendi

No contract subsisted between the respondent and the State Government at the relevant time, and the respondent was not disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because the Government chose not to ratify the agreement and treated him as a sub-contractor under Saxena; a mere agreement not meeting Article 299 requirements and not ratified cannot be considered a 'contract' for disqualification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs in accordance with the majority opinion; the judgment of the High Court is upheld.