NIKUNJA BEHARI SINGH Vs. DURYODHAN PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Nikunja Behera Singh files this appeal under Section 116-A of the representation of the People Act, 1951 against the order of Shri J. K. Misra, District judge of Sambalpur, constituting the single man Election Tribunal dated 2-111957, setting aside the election of the appellant to the general seat in Bargarh constituency of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and declaring the same as void on the application filed by the respondent Shri Duryodhan Pradhan, a voter of the said constituency.

(2.) THE first respondent-petitioner is an Elector in the Bargarh Assembly constituency of Orissa which is a double member constituency. The appellant had been elected to the general seat and Shri Bahadur Mahananda had been elected to the reserved seat for the scheduled caste, in the last general election. The petitioner's allegations are that 29-1-57 was the last date fixed for filing of nomination papers and that on the said date the appellant had an interest in a contract for the execution of works undertaken by the Government of Orissa and as such his election was void under Section 7 (d) of the Representation of the people Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The appellant entered into an agreement (Agreement No. M. C. C. 41 of 56-57) for certain work pertaining to the Hirakud Dam Project in the Bargarh Canal Reach 203. 356 to 203. 577 for Rs. 20,000/-and that agreement was subsisting on the date of the nomination and even after that. So the petitioner states that the appellant's nomination should have been rejected by the Returning Officer, but he improperly accepted it and this has materially affected the result of the election.

(3.) THE appellant-opposite party No. 1 denied the existence of any interest in a subsisting contract for the execution of any works undertaken by the State government on the date of the filing of the nomination paper and asserted that he had no contract with the Government of Orissa on the date of the filing of the nomination paper and as such he was not disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. With regard to the allegation in the petition that the appellant entered into an agreement (Agreement No. M. C. C. 41 of 56-57) the appellant simply put the petitioner to strict proof of the existence of such an agreement; that it was a contract between the State Government of Orissa and the appellant and that it was subsisting on the date of the nomination. He also stated that there was no objection at the time of scrutiny to the acceptance of his nomination paper either by the petitioner or by any of the candidates.