Direct Government work contracts can trigger election disqualification under section 7(d) despite Article 299 irregularity.
An arrangement for execution of Government work may constitute a direct contract under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 even if the formal agreement does not comply with Article 299(1) of the Constitution; that irregularity affects enforceability, not the existence of the contractual relationship for election disqualification. The contract is treated as subsisting until it is fully discharged by performance on both sides, so where work has been done but payment remains unpaid, the contract continues to operate at the relevant nomination date and the section 7(d) disqualification is attracted.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had entered into a direct contract with the Government for execution of works within section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) Whether such contract subsisted on the date of nomination so as to attract disqualification under section 7(d).
Issue (i): Whether the respondent had entered into a direct contract with the Government for execution of works within section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: The documentary correspondence showed negotiations between the Government officers and the respondent's firm for completion of the remaining mosaic and dado work after the original contractor defaulted. The offer by the respondent's firm and acceptance by the Executive Engineer constituted a direct arrangement for execution of work, and the fact that the formal contract did not conform to Article 299(1) did not prevent it from being a contract for the purposes of section 7(d). The clause under which the work was entrusted did not dispense with constitutional requirements, but the informality affected enforceability, not the existence of the contractual relationship for election disqualification.
Conclusion: The respondent had entered into a direct contract with the Government within section 7(d).
Issue (ii): Whether such contract subsisted on the date of nomination so as to attract disqualification under section 7(d).
Analysis: The work had been performed, but payment had not been made and the reciprocal obligations were not fully discharged. On the materials, the arrangement continued to operate and the Government's attempts to route payment through the original contractor did not destroy the direct contractual relationship. A contract within section 7(d) remains subsisting until it is fully discharged by performance on both sides, and the absence of payment kept the contract alive at the relevant time.
Conclusion: The contract was subsisting on the date of nomination and the disqualification under section 7(d) was attracted.
Final Conclusion: The election challenge failed in the appellate result recorded by the majority, and the returned candidate was held not to escape the statutory disqualification on the facts found by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an arrangement for execution of government work may amount to a contract despite non-compliance with Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India, and such contract remains subsisting until fully discharged by performance and payment on both sides.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
