LOKNATH PADHAN versus BIRENDRA KUMAR SAHU

LOKNATH PADHAN

BIRENDRA KUMAR SAHU

January 1.6. 1974

l'. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.)

[P. N. BHAGWATI AND

Representation of the People Act (43 ofl951) s. 116A-Electlon petiti'on challe,.g··

ing respondent's electlon ·to State Legislative Assembly-Dismissed-Dissolution of Assembly pending appeal to this Court-Effect on appeaf.

The appellant filed an ekction petition challenging the election of the respondent to the State legislative Assembly alleging that there was substising contract, entered into by the respondent in the course of his trade and business, with the State Government, for the e'l(ecution of works undertaken by the Government, and that therefore he was disqualified under s .. 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the contracts were not undertaken by the respondent in his individual capacity in the course of his trade and business but were on behalf of the Gram Panchayat of which he was the Naib Sarpanch, and also that the contracts had been fully carried out by the respondent long before the date of his nomination and that therefore, the Explanation to s. 9A was appli· cable and took his case out of tLe section. While the appeal was pending in thi'i C-0urt the State Legislative Assembly was dissolved under An. 174(2)(6) of the Con .. stitution. The respondent raised the preliminary objection at the hearing of the appeal that in view of the dissolution of the assembly it was academic to decide whether or not the respondent was disqualified under the section. · .o

HELD : The law relating to abatement of election petitions is exhaustively dealt with in Chap.· VI of Part IV flf the Act and since there is nothing in the Act which provides for abatement of election petitions when the legislature is dissolved the dis· ~o1ution does not result .in the abatement of an election petition. But the question in the present case is not whether the appeal has abated on the dissolution of the State Assembly, but whether in view of the dissolution of the State Assembly, it has be-come academic to decide the appeal. In the instant case, even if it is found that the respondent was disqualified under s. 9A it would have no practical consequence, because invalidation of his election after the dissolution of the State Assembly, unlike the case of invalidation for corrupt practice, woulJ have no effect whatso-ever. Therefore, the State Legislative assembly having been dissolved during the pendency of the appeal it is now wholly academic to consider whether the respon-dent was disqualified under s. 9A at the date of his nomination and since that is the only ground on which the election of. the respondent is challanged it would be fl' tile to hear the appeal on n1erits. [ll7D-E; 1200] ·

ShN1dhan Singh v. Mahan Lal, [1959} 3 S.C.R. 417, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDlCTION : Civil Appeal No. 644 of 1972

From the judgment and order dated the !st February 1972 of the Orissa High Court in Election Petition No. 3 of 1971.

Gobind Das, and P. H. Parekh for the appellant.

Narayan Nettar, V.J. Francis and B. Kanta Rao, fo~ the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI J.-This ajli'eal is preferred under s. 116A of the Repre-sentation of.the Peo;>le Act, 1951 (hereinaf;er referred to as the Act) agamst the Judgment of the Onssa High Court d1smissmg an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the respon-dent to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from Melchhamunda cons-tituency in Sambhali)ur di;trict of the State of Orissa.

The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows: There were general elections to the Orissa Legislative Assembly some-times in the beginning of March 1971. The last date for filing nomina-tion papors was fixed on 7th February, 1971 and on or before that date the appellant and the respondent both filed their respective nomination papers for the seat from Melchhamunda constituency. On 9th Fe-bruary, 1971, which was the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers, the appellant raised an objection against the nomination of the respondent on the ground that he was disqualified under s. 9A of the Act. Section 9A provides inter a/ia that person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, there subsists contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate Government for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government. There is an explanation to this section which says that where contra-c ct has been fully performed by the person by whom it has been entered into with the appropriate Government, the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that the Government has not performed its part of the contract either wholly or in part. The allega-tion of the appellant was that the respondent had entered into five contracts with the Government of Orissa for the executio11 of works undertaken by that Government and these contracts were still sub-D sisting and the respo11dent was, therefore, disqualified from contesting the election under s. 9A. This objection raised on behalf of the appel-lant was overruled by the Returning Officer and the nomination of the respondent was accepted. The polling thereafter took place on 5th March, 1971 and the respondent was declared elected on I Ith March, 1971. The appellant thereupon filed an election petition ill the High Court of Orissa calling in question the election of the respondent on the ground that he was disqualified from bdng elected as member by reason of s. 9A. The case of the appellant, as laid down in the elec-tion petition, \vas that, at the date of nomination five contracts \\'ere subsisting between the respondent and the Government of Orissa in respect of the following works entrusted through the Gaisilet Panchayat Samiti : (1) construction of the Mahila Samiti building at Borumunda, (2) construction of the community recreation centre at Borumunda, (3) construction of the village level lady worker's quarter at Boru-munda, (4) construction of package village level worker's quarter at Gaisilet and (5) construction of the Borumunda canal, and on account of the subsistance of these five contracts the disqualification under s. 9A was attracted. Though the appellat)t relied on subsistance of these five contracts in the election· petition, he conceded at the time of the arguments that contracts (4) and (5) may not be taken into account and rested his case solely on the ground that contracts (I) to (3) were subsisting between the respondent and the Government of Orissa. The respondent denied that he had entered into any of these contracts with the Government of Orissa in the course of his trade or business or that any such contract was subsisting between him and the Govern-ment of Orissa at the date of nomination. The respondent aliened that the works undertaken by him under contracts (I) to (3) were part of the Second Five Year Plan and they were to be carried out by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of 50% subsidy from the Government and 50 % contribution by the people in terms of money or labour andit was as leader of the people and Naib Sarpanch that he had under-taken these works on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and not in his individt:al capacity in course of his trade or business. The· contention of the respondent, therefore, was that s. 9A had no application in his case. It was also urged by the respondent that in any event these contracts had been fully performed by him before the date of nomina-tion and his case was, therefore, covered by the Explanation to s. 9A. The respondent also contended in the alternative that even if the stand taken by the Block Development Officer on behalf of the Gaisilet Panchayat Samiti was correct, namely, that the respondent had failed to carry out his obligations under th~se contracts and the Government of the Gaisilet Partchayat San1iti. had, therefore, becon1e entitled to recover the amount advanced to the respondent and for that purpose issued the requisitions for certificate of recovery on 8th January, 1967, the case of the respondent was outside s. 9A because in that . event the contracts were discharged by breach prior to 8th January, 1967 and were no longer subsisting at the date of nomination. The High Court trying the election petition took the view that the contracts in question were not undertaken by the respondent in his individual capacity in course of his trade or business, but they were undertaken on behalf of the Gram Panchayat in terms of the schemes envisaged in the Se"ond Five Year Plan as the respondent was the leader of the people and Naib Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, and the dis-qualification under s. 9A was, therefore, not attracted in the case of the respondent. The High Court also held, relying on the evidence of two witnesses, that the contracts had been fully carried out by the respondent Jong before the date of nomination and the Explanation was, therefore, applicable and that took the case of the respondent out of the inhibition of s. 9A. The view taken by the High Court thus was that the respondent was not disqualified from contesting the election under s. 9A and on this view the High Court dismissed the election petition. Hence the present appeal under s. l 16A of the Act.

Whilst the appeal was pending in this Court, the Orissa Legislative Assembly was dissolved by the Governor on 3rd March, 1973 under Art. 174(2)(b) of the Constitutioi1. The respondent, therefore, raised preliminary objection at the hearing of the appeal before us that in view of the dissolution of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, it was aca-deinic to decide whether or not the respondent was disqualified from being candidate under s. 9A and we should accordingly decline to hear the ap~al on merits. The argu1nent of the respondent \Vas that unless there is living issue between the parties the Court would not proceed to decide it : it would not occupy its time by deciding what is purely an academic question which has no sequitur so far as the posi-tion of the parties is concerned. Here, contended the respondent. even if the appellant was able to satisfy the Court that on the date of the nomination, the respondent was disqualified under s. 9A, it would be futile exercise, because the Orissa Legislative Assembly being dissolved, the setting aside of the election of the respondent would have no meaning or consequence and hence the Court should refuse to embark on <liscussion of the merits of the question arising in the appeal. We think there is great force int''' preliminary contention

urged on behalf of the respondent. It is well settled practice recog-nised and followed in .India as well as England that Court should not undertake to decide an issue, unless it is living issue between the partios. If an issue is purely academic in that its decision one way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties, it would be waste of public time and indeed not proper exercise of authority for the Court to engage itself in deciding it. Speaking of the House of Lords, Viscount Simon, L.C. said in the course of his speech in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Jervis (I) "I do not think that it would be proper exercise of the authority which this House posses-ses to hear appeals if it occupies time in this case in deciding an acade-. mic question, the answer to which cannot affect the respondent in any way", and added : "-it is an essential quality of an appeal fit to be disposed of by this House that there should exist between the parties to matter in actual controversy which the House undertakes to de-cide as living issue". This statement must apply equa1ly in case of exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court. It would be clearly futile and meaningless for the Court to decide an academic question, · the answer to which wquld not affect the position of one party or the other. The Court would not engage in fruitless exercise. It would refuse to decide question, unless it has bearing on some right or liability· in controversy between the parties. If the decision of question would be wholly ineffectual so far as the parties are concerned, it would · be not only unnecessary and pointless but also inexpedient to decide . it and the Court would properly.decline to do so. In the present case, the Orissa Legislative Assembly being dissolved, it has become academic to consider whether on the date when the nomination was filed, the respondent was disqualified under s. 9A. Even if it is found that he was so disqualified, it would have no practical 9onsquence, because the invalidation of his election after the dissolution of the Orissa Legis-lative Assembly would be meaningless and ineffectual. It would not hurt him. The disqualification would only mean that he was not entitled to contest the election on the date when he filed his nomina-tion. It would have .no consequences operating in future. It is pos-F sible that the respondent had subsisting contract with the Govern-. ment of Orissa at the date of nomination, but that contract may not be subsisting now. The finding that the respondent was disqualified would be based on the facts existing at the date of nomination and it would have no relevance so far as the position at future point of time -· -- may be concerned, and th~refore, in view of the dissolution of the Orissa . Legislative Assembly; it would have no practical interest for either of the parties. Neither would it benefit the appellant nor should it affect the respondent in any practical sense and it would be wholly academic to consider wl1ether the respondent was disqualified on the date of nomination.

The position might be different if the allegation against · the respondent were of corrupt practice. Then it would not be academic to consider whether or not the respondent was guilty of the corrupt practice charged against him, because. finding of

corrupt practice has serious consequences. If the respondent is found guilty of corrupt practice during the election, not only his election would be declared void, but he would also incur certain electoral disqualifications. Sec. SA provides that person found guilty of corrupt practice by an order under s. 99 shall be disqualified for priod of six years from the date on which that order takes effect. The purity of elections is of utmost importance in democratic set up and the law has, therefore, taken serious note of practice in elections and laid down disqualification for period of six years on an order being made by the High Court recording finding of corrupl practice at the time of disposing of the election petition. It is, therefore, obvious -that when corrupt practice is charged against the respondent in art election petition. the trial of the election peti-tion must proceed to its logical end and it should be determmed whe-ther the corrupt practice was committed by the respondent or not. As pointed out by this Court in Sh:·odhan Si11gh v. Mohan Lal ([1]) "no one can be allowed to corrupt the course of an election and get away with it either by resigning his membership or because of the for-tuitous circumstance of the assembly having been dissolved. The public are interested in seeing that those who had corrupted the course of an election are dealt \Vith in accordance \Vith law." The decision of the question whether corrupt practice was committed by the res-pondent or not would not, therefore, be academic and the Court would have to decide it, even if in the n1eantin1e the Legislature is dissolved. That was precisely the view taken by this Court in Sheodhan Sin~h v. Mohan Lal (l). In that case the election of the respondent to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was challenged by the appellant in an election petition on the ground that the respondent was guilty. of corrupt practice during the election. The Uttar Pradesh LegislatiYe Assembly was dissolved by the President during the penden-cy of the election petition before the High Court and preliminary objection was, therefore, raised on behalf of the respondent that the election petition had ceased to be maintainable on account of the dis~ solution of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The High Court rejected the preliminary objection but on merits it took the view that corrupt practice was not proved and accordingly dis1nissed the election petition. The appellant thereupon preferred as appeal to this Court and in the appeal also the same prelin1inary objection was repeated on beholf of the respondent. This Court negatived the preliminary objection. Hegde, J., speaking on behalf of the Court emphasised that the charge against ·..,the respondent was of corrupt practice and pointed out that if the creation of the appellant that the respondent \Vas gujJty of corrupt practice \Vas found to be true, then not only his election would be declared void but he would also be liable to incur certain sectoral disqualification, and therefore. in the interest ofpuritv of elec:ions it was necessary that "those who had corrupted the cours~ of an election are dealt with in accordance with law", and this purpose would stand defeated if the election petition were held to become in-fructuous on the dissolution of the Assembly. The learned Judge then proceeded to consider the relevant elections of the Act and after

referring to them, summaris~d his conclusion by saying : "From the above provisions it is seen that in an election petition the contest is really between the constituency on the one side and the person or persons complained of on the other. Once the machinery of the Act is moved by candidate or an elector, the carriage of the case does not entirely rest with the petitioner. The reason for the elaborate pro,·isions noticed by us earlier is to ensure to the extent possible that the persons who offered the election law are not allowed to avoid the consequences of their misdeeds." It will he seen that the emphasis in this decision was on the fact that the charge against the respondent was of corrupt practice and it was in this context that the Court held that where corrupt practices is alleged against the respondent in an election peti-tion, the dissolution of the Legislature during the pendency of the elec-tion petition does not render it infructuous. We fail to see how the ratio of this decision can have any application in the pres,ent case. Here there is no charge of any corrupt practice against the respondent. The 011ly ground on which the election of the respondent is sought to be invalidated is that he was disqualified at the date of nomination under s. 9A. This disqualification does not involve any act corrupt-ing the course of an election. It has no other consequence than that of making the particular election void. It does not entail any elec-D toral disqualification for the future. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two situations and this decision cannot be called in aid by the appellant.

The appellant, however, relied on the following observations in this decision and contended that these observations clearly lay down that an election petition does not become infructuous on the dissol-ution of the Legislature and the petioner is entitled to have the deci-sion of the Court upon it, notwithstanding the dissolution of the Legislature : ·

"The election petitions in this country are solely regulated by statutory provisions. Hence unless it is shown that some statutory provision directly or by necessary implication pres-cribes that the pending election petitions stand abated beca"se of the dissolution of the Assembly, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted".

''.The law relating to withdrawal and abatement of election petitions is· exhaustively dealt with in Chapter JV of Part VI of the Act. In deciding whether petition has abated or not we can-not travel outside the provision providing for the dropping of an election petition for any reason other than those mentioned therein. The act does not provide for the abatement of an elec-tion petition either when the returned candidate whose election is challenged resigns or when the assembly is dissolved. As the law relating to abatements and withdrawal is exhaustively dealt with in the Act itself no reliance can be placed on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code nor did the learned Counsel for the respondent bring to our notice any provision in the Civil Procedure Code under which the election petition can be held to have abated"We fail to see how these observations can be of any help to the appel-lant. They deal with totally different contention than the one ad-vanced before us. It may be noted that in this case the charge against the respondent was of corrupt practice and it could not, therefore, be successfully urged on behalf of the respondent that the decision of the question arising in the appeal had become academic on the dissolution of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The only contention which the respondent was, therefore, left with and which he could possibly advance was that an election petition must be held to abate on the dissolution of the Legislature and it was this con-tention which was dealt with and negatived in these observations. This Court pointed out that the law relating to abatement of election petitions is exhaustively dealt with in Ch. IV of Part VI of the Act and since there is nothing in the Act which provides for abatement of an election petition when the Legislature is dissolved, it must be held that the dissolution of the Legislature does not result in abatement of the election petition. We express our whole hearted concurrence with this view. But the question before us is not whether the appeal in the pre-sent case abated on the dissolution of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. That is not the contention raised on behalf of the respondent. The respondent does not say that the appeal has abated and must, therefore, be dismissed. What the respondent contends is that in view of the dissolution of.the Orissa Legislative Assembly, it has become academic to decide the appeal and hence we should decline to hear it. That is wholly different contention which is not covered by the observations quoted above. We do not, therefore, think this decision throws any light on the [0]c::tention raised before us. It does not compel us to take different view from the one we are inclined to take· on princi-ple.

We are, therefore, of the view that, the Orissa Legislative Assembly being dissolved during the pendency ofthis appeal, it is now wholly academic to consider whether the respondent was disqualified under s. 9A at the date of nomination and since that is the only ground on which election of the respondent is challenged, we think it would be futile to hear this appeal on merits. We accordinely dismiss the appeal with no orders as to costs all throughout. -

Appeal dismissed,