Election disqualification and office of profit rules do not cover a ferry toll lease or proven age qualification.
Age qualification for nomination was upheld because the election record, electoral roll and oral evidence showed the candidate had completed twenty-five years on the scrutiny date. A ferry toll lease under the Ferries Act was held not to be a disqualifying contract under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because it was a business arrangement to collect tolls and not a contract for supply of goods or execution of governmental works. The lessee also was not treated as holding an office of profit under the State Government, since the arrangement remained contractual and did not create a public office. The rejection of the nomination on these grounds was therefore unjustified.
Issues: (i) whether the returned candidate had completed the prescribed age on the date of scrutiny of nominations; (ii) whether a lease of ferry tolls under the Ferries Act amounted to a disqualifying contract under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (iii) whether the lessee of ferry tolls held an office of profit under the State Government.
Issue (i): whether the returned candidate had completed the prescribed age on the date of scrutiny of nominations.
Analysis: The election record, the electoral roll and oral evidence accepted by the High Court established that the candidate had completed twenty-five years of age on the relevant date. The challenge to the rejection of the nomination on this ground therefore had no factual foundation.
Conclusion: The finding that the candidate satisfied the age qualification was affirmed, and the rejection of the nomination on this ground was unjustified.
Issue (ii): whether a lease of ferry tolls under the Ferries Act amounted to a disqualifying contract under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: Section 9-A applies only where there is a subsisting contract in the course of trade or business for supply of goods to the Government or for execution of works undertaken by the Government. A ferry toll lease is a business arrangement by which the lessee acquires the right to collect tolls; it is not a contract for supply of goods, nor is it a contract for execution of governmental works. The statutory scheme of the Ferries Act and the conditions of the lease did not alter that character.
Conclusion: The lease did not attract Section 9-A and did not disqualify the candidate.
Issue (iii): whether the lessee of ferry tolls held an office of profit under the State Government.
Analysis: A lessee of ferry tolls is a contractor carrying on a business for his own gain and does not occupy a public office with duties owed to the Government. Ancillary rights under the lease, including seeking police assistance when needed, did not convert the contractual arrangement into an office of profit.
Conclusion: The candidate did not hold an office of profit under the State Government.
Final Conclusion: The nomination was not validly rejected on any of the grounds urged, and the election of the appellant was correctly set aside under the election law.
Ratio Decidendi: Election disqualifications under Section 9-A must be construed strictly, and a ferry toll lease is a business contract, not a contract for supply of goods, execution of works, or an office of profit.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
