N.N.Mithal - (1.) -This is an appeal by a returned candidate against the decision of the court below allowing the Election Petition of respondent no. 1.
(2.) THE election of pramukh of Block Hasanpur took place on 29-5-1983 in which there were three contesting candidates. THE appellant was declared elected having secured 47 votes while the respondent no. 1 had secured 46 votes and respondent no. 2 had secured only one vote. THE remaining 6 votes were declared invalid. An Election Petition was filed by the respondent no. 1 under rule 35 of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti (Election of Pramukh, Up Pramukh and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules of 1962 challenging the appellant's election on various grounds. THE main grounds of attack were that the appellant was holding an office of profit under the Government at the time when the nomination paper was filed and that he was guilty of corrupt practice as he had canvassed on the ground of caste and community for securing votes in bis favour. Both these grounds found favour with the Judge who heard the Election Petition and the appellant's election has been declared to be null and void and the petitioner was declared elected in his place as Block Pramukh. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been filed. The two questions which require determination by this Court are : (1) Whether the appellant was disqualified from seeking election for the reasons given in the Election Petition; and (2) Whether the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices having secured votes in his favour by canvassing on the ground of caste and community. According to the allegations made in the petition the appellant was disqualified from seeking election since he was employed as a Cane Inspector in Ayodhya Sugar Mills which, at the relevant time, was under the management of the Central Government and in view of this be must be said to be holding "a place of profit in the gift disposal of the Government" and "holding an office under the Central Government. According to the provisions of the Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, the State Government by notiflcation shall divide the rural area of each district into various khands and for each such khand a Kshettra Samiti will be constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 6. Section 7 provides for the election of Pramukh and Up Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti who are to be elected by persons specified in section 6 of the Act. The election has to be held by secret ballot and in the manner provided by rules.
(3.) WHILE section 7 lays down various qualifications possession of which is essential before one can offer himself as a candidate for election as Pramukh, Section 13 prescribes disqualification mentioned in clause (a) to (g) thereof and any of them is enough to render him disqualified for the office. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant was confined to clause (c) on the basis of which it was urged that he was disqualified from seeking the election. Clause (c) reads as under : - " Holds any place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Government or any local authority including a Gaon Sabha or is an honorary Magistrate or an Honorary Assistant Collector or an Honorary Munsif. " The stress in the present case is laid on the words "holds any place of profit in the gift or disposal of Government. It is urged that though the appellant was employed as a Cane Inspector in Ayodhya Sugar Mills, it was not an employment of the nature referred to in clause (c) even if at the relevant time the management of the aforesaid Mill had been taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of Sugar Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978 (Act 49 of 1978), hereinafter referred to as 1978 Act. The twin questions which emerge for discussion are whether the appellant was holding a place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Government on the date of filing the nomination paper in view of the fact that management of Ayodhya Sugar Mills had been taken over by the Central Government under the 1978 Act or whether the appellant was holding a post under the Government.;