TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner contested as a Congress-I candidate and secured 20,021 votes and the 1st respondent who contested as C.P.I. candidate secure 21,735 votes and was declared to have been elected. The 1st respondent was the successful bidder in the auction held by the Andhra Pradesh State Government regarding the case of the right to sell liquor in retail for the year 1977-78 in the arrack shop at Bommenapalli and he entered into an agreement with the Government with the Government and obtained a licence to sell liquor belonging to the Government during the Excise year commencing from 1-10-1977 till 30-9-1978. The 1st respondent was also a successful bidder to sell toddy in the shop at Potlapalli in Karimnagar Taluk for the Excise year 1977-78 and he also executed an agreement in favour of the Government and obtained a license for the period commencing from 1-10-1977 to 30-9-1978. When these two contracts with the Government for the sale of arrack and toddy are subsisting, the 1st respondent is disqualified under S. 9-A of the Representation of the People Act to be chosen to fill the seat in the Legislative Assembly and therefore, the result of the election has been materially affected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Indurti Assembly Constituency is void on the ground that he is disqualified under S. 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, as there subsists a contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the State Government being the highest bidder in the auctions held by the State Government for the leasehold right to sell liquor in retail in the arrack shops at Bommenapalli and Potalapalli in Karimanagar Taluk for the years 1977-78 and having entered into agreements with the State Government in respect of the said contract? (2) Whether, in view of the disqualification of the first respondent to contest the election, the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected to Andhra Pradesh State Assembly from the Indurti Constituency. 6. From a perusal of the petition and the counter it can be seen that the 1st respondent was the highest bidder regarding the lease of the right to sell liquor in retail for the year 1977-78 in the arrack shop at Bommenapalli. Similarly he was also the highest bidder in respect of the toddy shop at Potlapalli, Karimngar Taluk for the year 1977-78. He also entered into the necessary agreement with the Government as required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the toddy shop at Potlapalli and the arrack shop at Bommenapalli for the year 1977-78, which shows that the 1st respondent is the contractor in whose favour the auction as knocked down. P. W. 2 further deposed that the 1st respondent made the necessary deposits in his name towards the advance rentals for three months. The 1st respondent obtained a now harnama in favour of P. Yellayya in respect of the arrack shop at Bommenaralli and Ex. A-10 is the said Nowkarnama. For the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and for 1975-76 the 1st respondent was the highest bidder. Through P. W. 2 the relevant registers also were marked. He was not cross-examined. P. W. 3 is the Secretary of the Geetha Parisramika Sangham, Karimnagar Unit. He deposed that he has been carrying on toddy contracts for the last 10 years that the 1st respondent also was carrying on toddy-business and has been obtaining toddy and arrack contracts in his name, and that for this year the 1st respondent has taken the contract for the Bommenapalli arrack shop and the Potlapalli toddy shop. In the cross-examination he admitted that there is a separate Large Size Credit Co-operative Society in his village. He denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was the successful candidate. He further stated that he was a whole time worker of the Communist Party of India, President of the District Toddy Tappers Society and also the Sarpanch of his village for about 22 years, and that he has no trade or business and he does not run any arrack or toddy shop. With regard to the arrack shop at Bommanapalli and toddy shop at Potlapalli he deposed as stated by the earlier witnesses. Viz., that they had disputes and they approached him for arbitration and only with a view to help them he participated in the auctions and became the highest bidder. But actually the business is carried on only by R. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and he himself did not carry on any trade or business. He further asserted that he never entered into any contract with the Government for the supply of goods, or for execution of any works, and therefore he is not disqualified. In cross-examination he stated that since 1952 he has been in the Communist Party of India. He denied that he purchased 4 acres of land in Duddinapalli village and 30 guntas at Bommenapalli. He denied the suggestion that out of the income from the toddy and arrack shops he purchased the land. He also de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is disqualified to be chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly as per the provisions of Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' Section 9-A reads thus:- Disqualification for Government Contracts, etc.:- A person shall be disqualified if and for so long as, there subsists a contract entered 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. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that for disqualifying a person thereunder, the following conditions must be satisfied:- (1) There must be a contract between the person against whom Section 9-A is being invoked and the Government. (2) Such a contract must be for the supply of goods to the Government; or for execution of any works undertaken by the Government; (3) Such contracts must have been entered into by that person in the course of his trade or business; and (4) Such a contract must be subsisting on the date of the filing of the nomination papers. Now it has to be seen whether these conditions are satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to the facts of a case. 12. There is no doubt that the object of the Parliament in enacting Section 9-A was to preserve the integrity and independence of the members of the Legislature and to keep the Legislature beyond any suspicion in the interests of public morality. But as observed by the Supreme Court in Konappa v. Vishwanath,. [1969]2SCR90 the right of a person to stand for an election is valuable right just as a right of a person to vote and that a sensible view of the section will have top be taken. In Bhaskara Rao v. C. V. K. Rao, AIR1964AP77 a Division Bench of this court while considering the cope of the old Section 7(d) which is analogous to the present Section 9-A, observed thus (at P. 82): 'Since Section 7(d) is disabling provision and deprives citizens of India of the right to stand for election and serve the community, it should receive a very strict interpretation. Statutes which encroach on the rights of the subject, whether as regards person or property, are subject to a strict construction and it is a recognised rule that they should be interpreted if possible, so as to respect such rights and if there is any ambiguity as to the meaning of the secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner, however, relying on the decision cited supra, contended that a broad view of the section has to be taken and it should be interpreted in such a manner giving due effect to the object of the Parliament. But it is well settled that where the language is clear and unequivocal, the same cannot be strained in order to cover cases which are plainly excluded from the natural meaning of the words. In 'Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes', Chapter 2 Twelfth Edition, page 29 a passage runs thus;- Where, by the use of clear find unequivocal language capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the legislature, it must be enforced however harsh or absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be. The interpretation of a statute is not to be collected from any nations which may be' entertained by the court as to what is just and expedient words are not to be, construed, contrary to their meaning. as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should not be embraced or excluded. The duty of the court is to expound the law as it stands, and to leave the remedy (if one be resolved upon) to others. It is tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s renumbered in 1966 The Legislature has deliberately omitted the words or the performance of any services which is very significant. Some of the cases decided prior to the amendment would show that a contract with the Government to carry an certain services undertaken by the Government came within the mischief or S. 7(d) as it stood then. The cases rendered by the various Courts, subsequent to the amendment clearly throw much light on the effect of the amendment and an examination of these decisions would also make it clear that only such contracts to supply goods or to execute the words undertaken by the Government are covered by S. 9-A. A. J. Arunachalam v. Election Tribunal (1954) 9 Elec. LR 471 (Mad). was a case where an objection was raised to the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he was disqualified for standing far election under S. 7(d) (before amendment)as he had entered into a contract with the State Government where under he was appointed as a State nominee for distribution of bales of yarn. The High Court held that the candidate had an interest in the contract far the performance of the services undertaken by the Government of Madras within the meaning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the Government and the candidate for sale and purchase of Beedi leaves. The Division Bench having considered the terms of the contract, observed that the nature or the contract was such that no supply of goods or execution of any works to or for the Government was envisaged and that the Government for a consideration sells that Beedi leaves in forest areas specified in the' contract to the contractor who should within the period of the contract, Pick the Beedi-leaves and remove them from the forest. The learned Judges considered whether the contract is deemed to be performing the service undertaken by the Government, and rejecting that contention observed thus;-- In our view, a contract of service must, in order to come within the mischief of S. 7(d) of the Act, specifically have as its object the performance of a service. In other words. it means a contract directly for the performance of services or ancillary to the performance of any such service. These are some of the cases decided prior to the amendment in 1958. In the last cited case the High Court held that a contract to purchase Beedi leaves from the Government and to Sell the same to the public does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of goods. end for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government The Parliament also intended to restrict the scope of S. 7(d) or that it may not be vague enough to bring any kind of category of contracts within its scope in order to prevent all sorts of election disputes being raised. However a reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not necessary as the terms of S. 9-A which is in the same language as S. 7(d) after amendment, are not ambiguous or vague and on the other hand they are clear and plain, In Express Newspaper (Pvt) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1961)ILLJ339SC their Lordships held that a reference to the Statement Of Objects and Reasons attached to bill is not an aid to the construction of the terms of a statute which have of course to be given their plain and grammatical meaning and that it is only when the terms of the statute are ambiguous or vague that resort may be had to them for the purpose of arriving at the true intention of the legislature The well established principle of interpretation of statutes is that the provision of a statute must be construed according to its plain meaning, neither adding to It nor subtracting from it and when the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... squalified in view of the provisions of S. 7(d). The learned Judges specifying the importance of the amendment brought out in the year 1958 held that a contract entered into by the candidate to carry postal mail bags and postal articles is not a contract for the supply of goods or for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government. The learned Judges also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanathan's Case, AIR 1955 SC 359 rendered before the amendment wherein the same type of contract was held to be covered by S. 7(d) and pointed out that a subsisting contract with the Government to carry the mail bags does not disqualify a candidate after the amendment. At this juncture it is necessary to note one of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., that so far as the contract In respect of the teddy shop is concerned, it amounts to supply of goods to the Government. According to the learned counsel the 1st respondent taps the trees allotted by the Government by paying tree-tax and the toddy so tapped must be deemed to be supplied to the Government, which in turn under its own authority sells to the public. This is rather a strained argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch works This contention also is devoid of merits. The words used in this section are '' any works and they definitely connote the carrying out of some construction activities. In Satya Prakash's case AIR1963MP316 a similar contention was raised. The Division Bench repelling the said contention held thus (at p. 320):-- The contract under consideration is not even a contract 'for the execution of any works undertaken by the Central Government. In transporting postal articles and mail bags the Company no doubt undertook to do the work of carrying them. But this is not sufficient to attract the last part of S. 7(d). which postulates that the appropriate Government has undertaken some works., and It is for the execution of such works that the contract has been entered into by the person with the Government. The expression execution of any works means and implies the carrying out of some act or acts or course of conduct to the commencement and completion of the works, It is of significance that in cl. (d) the word used is not the singular work'` but the plural works..' The plural is always used in the sense of 'operations.' projects,' ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Satya Prakash's case, AIR1963MP316 , which has been followed by the Patna and the Allahabad High Courts as mentioned supra. 19. It may be that if Section 9-A had been in the Same terms as that of Section 7(d) as it stood prior to the amendment the contracts of this nature under the A. P. Excise Act would have come within the sweep of the words the performance of any services''. But those words are omitted by the amendment Act of 1958. It is already noticed that Same innocuous Contracts like carrying Postal mail bags, etc.. came within the mischief of Sec. of 7(d) as it stood prior to the Amendment and the candidates holding such contracts were disqualified. But Section 9-A which is in pari materia with Section 7(d)after amendment does not cover all kinds of contracts which are in a way meant for 'he performance of any services undertaken by the Government. It may not he possible to say that the persons who have excise contracts with the Government are of lesser consequence front the point of view of the integrity and independence of the Legislators when compared to the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
