Supreme Court Upholds Returning Officer's Rejection of Hereditary Village Officers' Nominations in Election Dispute. Hereditary Patels and Shanbhogs Are Holders of Offices of Profit Under Government Under Article 191 of Constitution and Section 100(1)(c) of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an election held on March 8, 1957, for the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Harihar constituency. Three candidates, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa, and Guru Rao, filed nomination papers, but the Returning Officer rejected them on the ground that Hanumanthappa and Siddappa were Patels and Guru Rao was a Shanbhog of certain villages in Mysore, and as such they were holders of offices of profit under the Mysore Government, thereby disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution of India. After the rejection, two candidates remained, and M. Ramappa, the appellant, was declared elected having secured the larger number of votes. Six electors of the Harihar constituency filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking a declaration that the election was void on the ground that the nomination papers had been improperly rejected. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition on September 10, 1957, holding that the village offices were regulated by the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, that hereditary character alone did not make them offices not under the Government, and that the officers received considerable remuneration. On appeal, the High Court of Mysore by judgment dated February 26, 1958, allowed the appeal and held that the offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were not offices under the Government, and declared the appellant's election void. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court with a certificate under Article 133(1)(c). The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Patels and Shanbhogs were holders of offices of profit under the Government, and therefore disqualified from being chosen as members of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191. The respondents, the electors, contended that these offices were hereditary under old customary law, devolved by hereditary succession, and were held under the village community, not the Government. They argued that the officers acted as agents of the village community to pay revenue and were liaisons with the Government, and that under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, appointment by Government was permissible only in the absence of hereditary officers; the Mysore Village Offices Act merely consolidated and preserved the hereditary right. The appellant contended that the village officers were appointed by the Government, worked under its control and supervision, and were remunerated from government funds, hence holders of offices of profit under the Government. The Supreme Court noted that village offices were governed by the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, which expressly included the offices of Patel and Shanbhog. It examined Section 6, dealing with grouping or amalgamation of villages, which provided for selection from families of previous holders but did not confer full hereditary right, and Section 8, which dealt with filling vacancies and enumerated disqualifications for office; it found that a hereditary heir did not automatically get the office until appointed by the Government. The Court reasoned that even a hereditary claimant must be appointed by the Government, and that the office is held under the Government because the Government has control and power of removal and provides remuneration from its funds and assets. It rejected the argument based on old customary law as unnecessary because the statutory scheme superseded it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that Patels and Shanbhogs were holders of offices of profit under the Government and were disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution. The rejection of their nomination papers was proper, and no ground under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 existed to declare the election void. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the Election Tribunal's order dismissing the election petition.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Mysore High Court, and restored the order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the election petition. It held that Patels and Shanbhogs were holders of offices of profit under the Government, the rejection of their nomination papers was proper, and the election of the appellant was not void.

Law Points