D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act), Anokh Singh, an elector from the Patti Assembly Constituency, district Amritsar, has called in question the Mid Term election of Surinder Singh Kairon, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). A declaration is sought to the effect that the election of the said Respondent from the aforesaid Constituency held in February, 1969, is void on the solitary ground that the Respondent entered into a contract with the Punjab Government for the construction of the additional Siswan Super -passage in the course of his trade and business which still subsists.
(2.) THE date of filing nomination papers has not been specified in the election petition. The date of polling was February 9, 1969. The result of the election was declared on February 10, 1969. Respondent No. 1, an official Akali Party candidate defeated his nearest rival, Jaswant Singh Kairon (who*is the contesting Respondent's uncle - -the official Congress candidate). Respondent was thereupon declared returned to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Patti Constituency. The main preliminary objection of Respondent No. 1, in his written statement is that even if all the allegations in the petition are admitted to be true, the returned candidate is not disqualified under the provisions of Section 9 -A of the Act and that, there being no other ground for setting aside the election, the petition should be dismissed in limine. The other preliminary objections have not been pressed by the Respondent.
(3.) ON the merits of the controversy, the Respondent's plea in brief is that though he was the sole proprietor of the Capital Construction Company, he was not disqualified under Section 9 -A of the Act as no such contract was entered into in the course of Respondent's trade or business as an enlisted contractor with the Punjab Government on the relevant dates and further because the contract, for the construction of the additional Siswan Super -passage, between him and the Government was neither subsisting on the date of nominations nor on the date of scrutiny. He has further emphasised that the work in question was undertaken on mere work orders and not on the basis of any regular contract. While admitting the work orders and the running payments, he has laid particular emphasis on the following two admitted conditions of contract contained in all the work orders in questions: (i) This order can be cancelled and the work stopped at any time by the Officer -in -charge of the work or by any officer superior to him in authority. Similarly, the contractor is at liberty to cease work at any time. (ii) In the matter of dispute, the case shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer of the circle, whose order shall be final. The other relevant conditions of the work order are: (i) the work to be done according to the specifications and to the entire satisfaction of the officer -in -charge; (ii) the Government is entitled to make deduction of 20 per cent for incomplete work; and (iii) express liberty to the contractor to cease work at any time. He then referred to the two letters sent by the Capital Construction Company to the Government in August and November, 1964, about the work having been abandoned due to a police raid conducted on August 18, 1964, and to the Government's reply dated December 4, 1964, and pleaded that a perusal of the said letters would show that there was no subsisting contract between the Respondent and the Punjab Government since August, 1964, as already acknowledged by the appropriate Government too.;