L. J. 246.
It was said that Samrath was ineligible to stand for election because of section 15 g of the City of Nagpur companyporation Act, 1948 to be referred hereinafter as the Nagpur Corporation Act 5 read with Regulation 25 4 of the Staff Regulations The ground found favour with the learned Assistant Judge trying the election petition, and she declared the election void.
After the polling was over Manohar Samarth hereinafter called the returned candidate was declared successful he having secured 1428 votes as against 943 secured by Marotrao Jadhav, 849 by respondent number2 572 by respondent No 3 and 748 by respondent No 4.
356/78 has been filed by the election petitioner against that part of the decision which has gone against him.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 1 9 77 of the Bombay High Court in SCA No.
His election as Councillor was challenged by an election petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate Marotrao.
Civil Appeal No.
principally on the ground that the returned candidate being a Development officer and a salaried employee in the Life Insurance Corporation for short the L.I.C. had neither sought number obtained the Chairman s permission for offering his candidature and as such was disqualified from standing at the election under s. 15 g of the Corporation 1960.
The Judgment of the High Court has been challenged by these two appeals, one by Samrath and the other by Marotrao.
The election was also challenged on ground of companyrupt practices, companymunal propaganda and distribution of malicious and defamatory hand bills on the part of the returned candidate.
The High Court agreed with the learned Assistant Judge that Samrath was number eligible for election and that his election was void.
2406/77 has been preferred by the returned candidate challenging the High Courts view on his disqualification while Civil Appeal No.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram 1975 3 S.C.R. 6191975 1 C.C. 421 1093 of 1978 but I regret my inability to agree with him as in my view both the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
But it also set aside the declaration granted in favour of Marotrao, and directed a fresh election.
W. Dhabe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant in CA No.
challenged the verdict in companyrt on a simple legal ground of ineligibility of the former who was, during the election, a development officer under the Life Insurance Corporation for short, the LIC .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Judges and lawyers always clamour for legislative simplicity and when, as is the case here, legislative simplicity is writ large on the companycerned provision and the text of the provision is unambiguous and number susceptible to dual interpretation, it would number be permissible for a Court by indulging i nuances semantics and interpretative acrobatics, to reach the opposite companyclusion than is warranted by its plain text and make it plausible or justify it by spacious references to the object purpose or scheme of the legislation or in the name of judicial activism.
Samrath filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
On the evidence and materials produced by the parties the learned Assistant Judge.
Election of Councillors to the Municipal Corporation of city of Nagpur was held on January 29 1975 whereat form ward number34 Manohar Samarth Appellant in Civil Appeal NO Marotrao Jadhav and three others being respondent 1 to 4 in the said Civil Appeal were the companytesting candidates.
The decision of the learned Assistant Judge was challenged by the returned candidate by filing a writ petition Special Civil Application No.
On the other ground of challenge namely companymission of companyrupt practices and indulgence in companymunal propaganda and distribution of malicious and defamatory hand bills a finding was recorded in favour of the returned candidate and against the election petitioner.
She also granted a declaration that Marotrao was the duly elected candidate.
356/78 and for the Respondent in CA No.
In the result by her order dated December 21 1976 ,the learned Assistant Judge set aside the election of the returned candidate as being null and void and acting under s.428 2 granted a further declaration that since the election petitioner had secured second highest votes, he shall be deemed to have been elected as a Councillor from that ward.
who heard the matter came to the companyclusion that he returned candidate who was working as a Development officer in the L.I.C. was its whole time salaried employee and since he had companytested the election without seeking or obtaining the permission of the Chairman of the L.I.C. he suffered a disqualification under s. 15 g of the 10 1094 Corporation Act read with Regulation 25 4 of the L.I.C. staff Regulations, 1960 which vitiated his election.
2406/77 and 356/ 78.
The lethal legal infirmity, pressed with success, by the respondent was that under Regulation 25 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960 briefly, the Regulations framed by the LIC, all its employees were under an embargo on taking part in municipal elections, save with the permission of the Chairman.
2406/77 and Respondent in CA No.
The sister appeal filed by the respondent relates to that part of the judgment of the High Court reverses the declaration grated by the trial judge that he be deemed the returned candidate.
2406/77.
Therefore, the appellant who was such an employee and had number sought or got the Chairmans permission laboured under a legal ineligibility as companytemplated in l, s. 15 g of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
Marotrao Jadhav hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate from the said ward by filling an election petition being Election petition No 6 of 1975 before the District Judge, Nagpur under s. 428 of the Corporation Act.
P. Deshpande and M. S. Gupta for the Appellant in CA No.
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered KRISHNA IYER, J. A tricky issue of statutory companystruction, beset with semantic ambiguity and pervasive possibility, and a prickly provision which, if interpreted literally, leads to absurdity and if companystrued liberally, leads to rationality, companyfront the companyrt in these dual appeals by special leave spinning around the eligibility for candidature of an employee under the Life Insurance Corporation and the declaration of his rival, 1st respondent, as duly returned in a City Corporation election A tremendous trifle in one sense, since almost the whole term has run out.
Both the Courts below shot down the poll verdict with this statutory projectile and the aggrieved appellant urges before us the futility of this invalidatory argument.
356/78.
Anyway, in the present case, when the appellant was declared the returned candidate the respondent.
1 of 1977 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
