SRIKANT Vs. VASANTRAO
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on January 20,2006

SRIKANT Appellant
VERSUS
VASANTRAO Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BRIJ KISHORE VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL NAIK VS. RAJANI GAONKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAN S/O TUKARAM BUTAKE VS. KIRTIKUMAR MITESH BHANGDIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR VS. JAI PRAKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-416] [REFERRED]
SANTOSH CHANDANSINGH RAWAT VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-201] [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAN SAMADHAN LANDE VS. SANJAY SHYAMRAO DHOTRE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
ULTRA HOME CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD VS. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL INC [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-204] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. RAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2023-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
AMRENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATI CEMENT PRODUCTS VS. DELHI JAL BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-309] [REFERRED]
M/S. JMC PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. BHAGYANAGAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [LAWS(APH)-2012-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
KASHI PUROHIT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SINGH VS. ANIL KUMAR SHISHODIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-58] [REFERRED TO,]
SUFI AZIZ UR REHMAN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2010-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAKHI NAIK ALIAS RAKHI AMIT NAIK VS. RAJANI GAONKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-207] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM PAL VS. SPEAKER LOK SABHA [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHIRISH Q. KAMAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-190] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH CHANDANSINGH RAWAT VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-134] [REFERRED TO]
RAJDEEP INDUSTRIES VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-330] [REFERRED TO]
RIO ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-209] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS CORPORATION STAFF CO-OP. STORES LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-409] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI STEELS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-247] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR VS. KUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
R. SUNDARRAJIN VS. DR. K. KRISHNASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-121] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-137] [REFERRED TO]
M/S AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES (I) P.LTD. VS. UNITECH LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-276] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. ELECTRICAL MFG CO LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA KANT GUPTA VS. RICHLOOK GARMENTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-258] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SHYAM SUNDER GOEL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-379] [REFERRED TO]
BHADRA SHAHAKARI S K NIYAMITA VS. CHITRADURGA MAZDOOR SANGH [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ NARULA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
BRIGADIER AMITABHA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-324] [REFERRED TO]
S. RUKMINI MADEGOWDA VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
PRASAR BHARATI VS. B4U MULTIMEDIA INTERNATIONAL LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA NIGAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
SONBA S/O GULABRAO MUSALE VS. SUNIL S/O CHHATRAPAL KEDAR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHIRKA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. APPOLLO ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SUDAMBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-10-352] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. COAL INDIA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(CAL)-2008-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHALIMEDA LAKSHMI NARSIMHA VS. CHENNADI SUDHAKAR RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-2-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Raveendran, J. - (1.)This appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [for short the Act] is by the returned candidate against the judgment dated 31-8-2004 passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 2002 filed by the first respondent herein.
(2.)Notice of Election dated 29-5-2002 was given by the Returning Officer in respect of an election to be held to elect a member to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Aurangabad Division Graduates Constituency. As per calendar, the last date for filing nominations was 5-6-2002, the scrutiny of nomination papers was taken up on 6-6-2002 and the poll was held on 23-6-2002. The appellant, who was one of the candidates, was declared elected on 26-6-2002. On 9-8-2002, the first respondent, one of the rival candidates, filed Election Petition No. 1/2002 in the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the election of the appellant under sections 9-A, 98, 100 (1) (a) and (d) and 101(1)(a) of the Act.
(3.)In the said election petition, the first respondent alleged that the appellant was a government contractor carrying on business under the trade name of M/s. Precision Press Fabricon at Aurangabad. He further alleged that the appellant had entered into three contracts with the State Government, in the course of his business for execution of works undertaken by the appropriate Government, and such contracts were subsisting, on the date of filing of nomination/scrutiny of the nomination papers/declaration of result [in June, 2002]. The said contracts were :
a) Contract as per work order dated 19-5-1996 issued by the Executive Engineer, Medium Project Irrigation Division, Latur, for the work of designing, fabricating, and erecting the Automatic stilt doors at the canal of Tawarja Project.

b) Contract as per work order dated 31-12-1998 issued by the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Works Division No.2, Latur, for execution of the work relating to water supply scheme in ten villages surrounding Pangaon.

c) Contract as per work order dated 12-4-1999 issued by the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran for the work relating to water supply scheme, Stage-II Taluk Geora, District Beed.

The first respondent contended that Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is part and parcel of the State Government and therefore, contracts with the said Pradhikaran are in effect contracts with the State Government. First Respondent contended that as these three contracts (the first with the State Government and the other two with Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran) were subsisting in June, 2002, the appellant was disqualified for being chosen as a Member of Legislative Council, under section 9A of the Act.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.