Case Note & Summary
The case involved an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the Orissa Legislative Assembly on grounds of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant was declared elected after receiving 17,700 votes, while the first respondent received 15,568 votes. The first respondent filed a petition alleging that the appellant had committed corrupt practices by obtaining assistance from Sarpanches of Grama Panchayats. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, but the High Court allowed the appeal, declaring the election invalid on the grounds that a Sarpanch was in the service of the Government. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that a Sarpanch is not a person in the service of the Government as defined under Section 123(7)(f) of the Act. The court clarified that the relationship of master and servant was not established between the Government and the Sarpanch, as the latter was elected and not appointed or paid by the Government. The court emphasized the need for both conditions of being in service and belonging to the specified class to be met for the provisions to apply. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the election petition was dismissed, reinstating the appellant's election.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Definition of 'in service of Government' - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(7)(f) - The court held that a Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat in Orissa is not a person in the service of the Government, as he is not appointed or paid by the Government and does not have the master-servant relationship with the Government. The distinction between 'serving under the Government' and 'in the service of the Government' was emphasized, leading to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 123(7)(f) do not apply to a Sarpanch (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat is a person in the service of the Government under Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the election of the appellant and dismissing the election petition of the respondent. The court held that the provisions of Section 123(7)(f) do not apply to a Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat as he is not in the service of the Government.
Law Points
- Corrupt practice
- election petition
- service of government
- Sarpanch
- Representation of the People Act
- 1951
