Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gajanan Butake, filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondent No.1, Kirtikumar Bhangdiya, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the 074 Chimur constituency. The principal ground was that respondent No.1 was a government contractor with subsisting contracts on the date of filing his nomination, thereby disqualified under Section 9A of the Act. The petitioner also alleged that the name of the returned candidate in the nomination form differed from the name declared in the results. The court examined the evidence and found that the petitioner failed to produce any contract entered into by respondent No.1 with the government. The contracts relied upon were with the Zilla Parishad, which is a local authority, not the government. The court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish the disqualification, and he had not discharged it. Regarding the name variation, the court noted that the nomination form was filled as per the electoral roll, and the variation was minor and did not affect the election. The petition was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification of Candidates - Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Government Contractor - The petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate on the ground that he was a government contractor with subsisting contracts on the date of filing nomination, thus disqualified under Section 9A. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish the existence of a subsisting contract. The petitioner failed to produce any contract entered into by the respondent No.1 with the government. The contracts relied upon were with the Zilla Parishad, which is a local authority, not the government. Therefore, the disqualification under Section 9A was not attracted. (Paras 1-10) B) Election Law - Name Variation in Nomination Form - Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner contended that the name of the returned candidate in the nomination form differed from the name in the result declaration. The court observed that the nomination form was filled as per the electoral roll, and the variation was minor and did not affect the validity of the election. The petitioner did not plead any material fact or prejudice. Hence, this ground was also rejected. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No.1 was disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for having a subsisting government contract on the date of filing nomination, and whether the variation in name in the nomination form and the result declaration invalidates the election.
Final Decision
The election petition is dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- disqualification for government contractors
- burden of proof on election petitioner
- strict construction of disqualification provisions
- subsisting contract requirement
