Statutory disqualification for interest in a government supply contract extends to partners with a share in the firm's contract.

A candidate is disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if he has a share or interest in a subsisting government supply contract. The Court treated partnership participation in a firm holding such a contract as enough to attribute that contractual interest to all partners, especially where one partner entered the contract for the benefit of the firm. It also held that the sales tax documents and the appellant's own statement could prove partnership and interest, and that the confidentiality rule in the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not bar their production. The election was therefore void on the ground of statutory disqualification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly because he had a share or interest in a contract for the supply of sleepers to the Government, and whether such disqualification attracted voiding of the election.

Analysis: The firm concerned had a subsisting contract for the supply of sleepers to the Uttar Pradesh Government on the relevant dates. The evidence from the sales tax assessment order, return, and the appellant's own statement established that the appellant was a partner in the firm and therefore had a share and interest in the contract. The confidentiality provision in the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not bar production of the documents. The Court also held that when one partner enters into a government supply contract on behalf of the firm, the contract is for the benefit of all partners, and the disqualification under section 7(d) applies to them. The burden of proving that the appellant was not a partner lay on him once partnership activity was shown.

Conclusion: The appellant was disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the election was rightly held void.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the election petition succeeded on the ground of statutory disqualification arising from the appellant's interest in the government supply contract.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate is disqualified when he has a share or interest in a government supply contract, including where that interest arises through partnership and the contract is taken by one partner on behalf of the firm for the benefit of all partners.

---