- (1.) Preliminary The petitioner Uma Shankar Singh contested the General Elections held in the year 2012 to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Rasara (Ballia) constituency and was declared elected on 06.03.2012. However, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 192 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh has declared, in his order dated 29.01.2015, that the petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms of clause (e) of Article 191 (1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ('the Act of 1951' hereinafter) for the reason of his having continued with the work of contracts obtained from the Government of Uttar Pradesh even after election as the Member of the Legislative Assembly ('MLA'). Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition questioning the order so passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, as also the reports/orders/proceedings preceding such decision, including the report dated 18.02.2014 as submitted by the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the opinion dated 31.12.2014, as stated by the Election Commission of India.
(2.) The provisions contained in Article 192 of the Constitution of India could be taken note of at the outset as under:- "192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members.-(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. (2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion." Section 9-A of the Act of 1951 could also be taken note of as under:- "9A. Disqualification for Government contracts, etc. --A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works, undertaken by that Government. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, where a contract 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."
(3.) Multiple and variety of contentions have been urged in this matter on behalf of the petitioner and the contesting respondents on the legality and validity of the report dated 18.02.2014 of the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh; on the opinion forwarded by the Election Commission dated 31.12.2014; and the order passed by His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh dated 29.01.2015, related with the operation of the relevant provisions of law, as also the facts of the case.;