Mandatory contract termination conditions govern electoral disqualification when a subsisting government contract is not validly ended before nomination.

A valid Government Order regulated termination of a subsisting contract for election purposes only if a substitute acceptable to the Chief Engineer was available, the unfinished work could be taken over without loss, and all rights and liabilities were finally settled. The SC held that the Order was a valid administrative instruction and had to be complied with strictly. The contractor's purported termination was ineffective because the Divisional Engineer lacked authority, ratification could not cure the defect, and the mandatory conditions were not met. The contracts therefore remained subsisting when the nomination papers were filed and scrutinized, attracting disqualification under the Representation of People Act and rendering the election void.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's contracts with the Government were validly terminated before filing and scrutiny of nomination papers, so as to avoid disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The governing Government Order permitted a contractor to terminate a subsisting contract for contesting elections only if a substitute acceptable to the Chief Engineer was available, the unfinished work could be taken over without loss to the Government, and there was a final settlement of rights and liabilities. The Court held that this executive order was a valid administrative instruction in the absence of any inconsistent statute or rule, and that it had to be applied according to its terms. On the evidence, the contracts were not terminated by the authority competent under the Government Order. The Divisional Engineer had no authority to terminate the contracts for this purpose, and subsequent ratification could not cure that defect. Further, the conditions regarding complete settlement and absence of outstanding liability were not satisfied, and the record showed that the contracts remained subsisting when the nomination papers were filed and scrutinized.

Conclusion: The respondent was disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and the election was illegal, null and void.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Government Order validly regulates the manner in which a subsisting contract may be terminated to avoid electoral disqualification, compliance with its mandatory conditions and action by the competent authority are essential; an invalid or unauthorized termination cannot prevent disqualification under Section 9A.

---