TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt the submission made on behalf of the first respondent that the appellant had entered into a contract for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government. It is only when the appropriate Government has undertaken works, such as the laying of a road, the erection of a building or the construction of a dam, and has entered into a contract for the execution of such works that the contractor is disqualified under Section 9-A. Section 9-A does not operate to disqualify the lessee of a mining lease such as the appellant. Having regard to this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the submission on behalf of the appellant that, in any event, the High Court could not have declared the first respondent duly elected. Appeal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into by him in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by, that government. The disqualification provision in the said Act has been amended twice. In the original Act it was provided by Section 7 that a person is disqualified if, whether by himself or by any person or body of persons in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account, he has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works or the performance of any services undertaken by, the appropriate government. This provision was amended in 1958 and it said that a person is disqualified if there subsists a contract entered into the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks undertaken by the appropriate Government. The Court noted the observations of Gajendragadkar, J. in the case of Ram Padarath Mahto Vs. Mishri Singh [1961(2) SCR 470], thus : It may sound technical, but in dealing with a statutory provision which imposes a disqualification on a citizen it would be unreasonable to take merely a broad and general view and ignore the essential points of distinction on the ground that they are technical. The Court also took note of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Lakshmikantha Rao Vs. D. Chinna Mallaiah [AIR 1979 AP 132] where the question was whether a person who was carrying on business in arrack and toddy under a contract with the Government under the provisions of the Andhra Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in partnership with others, for the sale of liquor with the appropriate Government. This Court, relying upon Dewan Joynals case, held that the returned candidate had not incurred the disqualification. This Court said that Section 9- A was a statutory provision which imposed a disqualification on a citizen; it was, therefore, unreasonable to take a general or broad view, ignoring the essentials of the section and the intention of the legislature. In so far as is relevant to a case where it is alleged that a candidate holds a contract for the execution of works undertaken by an appropriate Government, Section 9-A requires (a) that there should be a contract entered into by the candidate; (b) that it should be entered into by him in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undertake a patient or guest. To endeavor to perform or try; to promise, engage, agree, or assume an obligation. There can be no doubt about the correctness thereof. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appellant, in doing mining work, was executing works undertaken by the Government, which it was the Governments obligation to perform. Because it was the Governments obligation, this was works undertaken by the Government. Reference was made by learned counsel, and by the High Court in the judgment under challenge, to Section 18 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Section 18 deals with mineral development and says that it shall be the duty of the Central Government to take all such st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had entered into a contract for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government. As we see it, it is only when the appropriate Government has undertaken works, such as the laying of a road, the erection of a building or the construction of a dam, and has entered into a contract for the execution of such works that the contractor is disqualified under Section 9-A. Section 9-A does not operate to disqualify the lessee of a mining lease such as the appellant. Having regard to this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the submission on behalf of the appellant that, in any event, the High Court could not have declared the first respondent duly elected. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
