PRAKASH KHANDRE versus DR. VIJAY KUMAR KHANDRE AND ORS.

PRAKASH KHANDRE versus DR. VIJAY KUMAR KHANDRE AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that there was no subsisting contract between the appellant and the State Government at the time of scrutiny of nomination, and therefore the provisions of Section 9-A for disqualification did not apply. Further, the Act does not provide for the next highest polling candidate to be declared elected when there are more than two candidates and the elected candidate is found disqualified; the logic that votes would be 'thrown away' cannot be imported from UK law, and it is speculative and unfounded to declare the next highest candidate as elected in these circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Prakash Khandre; Respondent No. 1 (election Petitioner): Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre; Respondent (voter, Petitioner in Connected Appeal): Baswaraj D. Honna
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Election Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside. Connected appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Elected Representative, Election Petitions, Subsisting Government Contracts, Interpretation of Representation of the People Act, 1951
Election Law Disqualification of Elected Representative Election Petitions Subsisting Government Contracts Interpretation of Representation of the People Act, 1951

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prakash Khandre

Appellant

Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre

Respondent No. 1 (election Petitioner)

Baswaraj D. Honna

Respondent (voter, Petitioner in Connected Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, in an election petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951, where more than two candidates contest for one seat and the returned candidate is found disqualified, the Court can declare the candidate with the next highest votes as elected.
  2. 2 Whether there was a subsisting contract between the elected candidate and the Government on the date of scrutiny of the nomination paper.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that there was no subsisting contract between the appellant and the State Government at the time of scrutiny of nomination, and therefore the provisions of Section 9-A for disqualification did not apply. Further, the Act does not provide for the next highest polling candidate to be declared elected when there are more than two candidates and the elected candidate is found disqualified; the logic that votes would be 'thrown away' cannot be imported from UK law, and it is speculative and unfounded to declare the next highest candidate as elected in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside. Connected appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Election of Prakash Khandre restored; High Court's order voiding election and declaring Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre as elected is quashed and set aside.
  • Civil Appeal Nos. 2-3 of 2002 allowed.