Office of Profit and Corrupt Practice: local authority appointment did not trigger disqualification, and the election challenge failed for lack of proof.

A person serving as Chairman of a body that is a local authority does not hold an office under the State Government merely because the Government appoints or controls that body; where the body has separate corporate existence, funds, taxing powers and administrative functions, election disqualification for office of profit does not arise. A charge of corrupt practice based on alleged use of police premises and police assistance was also not proved, because the evidence was unreliable and the allegation required proof beyond reasonable doubt. On both grounds, the challenge to the election failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent, as Chairman of the Jharia Mines Board of Health, held an office of profit under the State Government so as to incur disqualification for election to the Legislative Assembly; (ii) Whether the alleged use of police premises and police assistance for holding an election meeting amounted to a corrupt practice under the election law.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent, as Chairman of the Jharia Mines Board of Health, held an office of profit under the State Government so as to incur disqualification for election to the Legislative Assembly.

Analysis: The Board was found to be a local authority within the meaning of clause (31) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It had its own corporate existence, funds, taxing powers and administrative functions. Appointment by the Government or some governmental control over the Board did not convert the office into one held under the Government, and the remuneration was not paid from Government revenues. The relevant tests for an office under Government were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The respondent did not hold an office under the State Government, and no disqualification arose on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged use of police premises and police assistance for holding an election meeting amounted to a corrupt practice under the election law.

Analysis: The allegation rested on hearsay evidence from the appellant and on testimony which the High Court did not accept. The police officer and the respondent denied the charge. On the evidence, the charge of corrupt practice was not proved, and such a serious allegation required proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The alleged corrupt practice was not established.

Final Conclusion: The election petition failed on both grounds, and the challenge to the respondent's election could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person appointed to and serving in a body that is a local authority does not incur election disqualification merely because the Government appoints or ls that body, and an alleged corrupt practice must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by reliable evidence.

---