V.G. Oak, J. - (1.) THIS petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against a decision of the learned Sub -Divisional Officer, Shikohabad allowing an election petition. There was election for the Office of Pradhan of Gram Sabha of village Hariha in district Mainpuri. Darman Singh was declared elected to the office of Pradhan. Dori Lal filed an election challenging Darman Singh's election. The election petition was allowed by the learned Sub -Divisional Officer, Shikohabad on 13 -3 -1956. The election was declared invalid, and it was further declared that a casual vacancy for the office of Pradhan had been created. Darman Singh filed an application for review. The review, application was rejected on 15 -6 -1956. Darman Singh has filed this writ petition forgetting the two orders dated 13 -3 -1956 and 15 -6 -1956 quashed.
(2.) IN the election petition Dori Lal raised two points. The first point was that malpractices prevailed at the election. The second point was that Darman Singh was not qualified to stand for the election. No evidence was produced in support of the charge of malpractices. That issue was decided against Dori Lal. On the second point the Tribunal held that Darman Singh was holder of an office of profit from the District Beard. He was, therefore, disqualified for the election. On that view the election petition was allowed and Darman Singh's election was set aside. So the question for decision in this writ petition was whether Darman Singh was a holder of an office of profit as found by the learned Sub -Divisional Officer. S. 5A UP Panchayat Raj Act deals with disqualifications for holding office under Gaon Sabha. Cl (b) S 5A is - Holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central Government or a local authority (other than a Gaon Sabha or Nyaya Panchayat). The question of 'office of profit' was discussed by the learned Sub -Divisional Officer under issue No. 2. He observed: lt is admitted that the opposite party Darman Singh is a contractor of Jamuna Ghat on behalf of District Board, Agra. It appears from the arguments that the contract was sold by the auction and the term of contract is one year. The contract is in force. I agree that this is an office of profit from the District Board. The District Board is a local authority. The question is whether a contractor, who has purchased in auction the right to ply boats on a Ghat, is a holder of an office of profit. Mr. Ranjit Singh appearing for Dori Lal relied upon the dictionary meaniug of the word 'office'. According to dictionary, one of the meaning attached to the word 'office' is "business." The Petitioner was doing the business of plying boats on a Ghat. It was, therefore, argued that he held an office.
(3.) THE expression "office of profit" came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ravanna Subanna v. G. S. Kageerappa : AIR 1954 SC 653. In that case the Chairman of a Taluk Development Committee received a sum of Rs. 6 for attending a meeting. The question arose whether be held an office of profit. It was held that he did not hold an office of profit. Their Lordships observed at p. 656: The plain meaning of the expression seems to be that an office must be held under Government to which any pay, salary emoluments or allowance is attached.;