Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the first respondent was disqualified under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by reason of subsisting contracts for the lease of the right to sell arrack and toddy, and whether such contracts amounted to a contract for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by, the Government.
Analysis: The first respondent had subsisting contracts with the State Government at the time of nomination, but Section 9-A applies only where the contract is entered into in the course of trade or business and is for the supply of goods to the Government or for the execution of works undertaken by it. The statutory language was held to be clear and not capable of extension by resort to a broad or strained construction. The omission, by amendment, of the earlier phrase relating to performance of services showed that the provision was deliberately narrowed. A lease to sell intoxicants in retail, under the excise regime, merely conferred the right to sell to the public on payment of rentals and other charges; it did not amount to supplying goods to the Government, nor did it involve execution of works undertaken by the Government.
Conclusion: The first respondent was not disqualified under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.