Date 11.8.1999 To, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, I.P.C. Division No.3 Sulepete, Sub Regarding No dues Certificate NDC Sir, This is for your submission that since I am companytesting the forthcoming Vidhana Sabha Elections, I require the numberdue certificate from your office NDC .
As referred to above there exist a companytract to the extent of 10 of the work referred to This is for your information.
The appellants case pleaded and sought to be proved in the Election Petition before the High Court was that on the date of election i.e. 5.9.1999, there existed a companytract between the Returned Candidate as Class I Government Contractor with the Government of Karnataka for the companystruction of Right Bank Canal including C.D. works from Km.
13/99 filed by the present appellant challenging election of the Returned Candidate Respondent No.
2002 Supp 3 SCR 141 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DHARMADHIKARI, J. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act 1951 for short the Act against the order dated 10th April 2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing Election Petition No.
45 to 46 Lower Mullamari Project of the Irrigation Department.
The companytents of letter Ex.
To prove genuineness of the letter dated 11.8.1999 and affidavit dated 13.8.1999, the respondent examined the Accounts Superintendent viz.
He testified the entry made on 15.9.1999 in the Inward Register Ex.
Subhas Kallur, by letter dated 11.8.1999 requested this office to issue No dues certificate to companytest the election on the ground he companypleted the entire work of companystruction of right Bank Canal including C.D. works from Km.
P18 was submitted to him.
After verification of measurement book and perusing the entire records of work referred to above Shri Subhas Kallur, Class I. companytractor, has number companypleted the entire work for the companystruction of Right Bank Canal including C.D. works, from Km 45 to 46 of Lower Mulamari project.
For the purposes of this Act, the date on which candidate is declared by the returning officer under the provisions of section 53 or section 66, to be elected to a House of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State shall be the date of election of that candidate.
It is also number disputed by the respondent that even after the expiry of stipulated period of six months, respondent No.
By relying on the companytents of the above mentioned letter and affidavit the High Court recorded its companyclusion that before the date of election there was unilateral and or bilateral termination of companytract between respondent and the Government.
This fact is number in dispute that the tender submitted for the Contract by the respondent was accepted by the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department vide his letter dated 5.11.1996.
P19 pertaining to letter dated 11.8.1999.
P7 to the Executive Engjneer to seek termination of the Contract, the appellant summoned in evidence the then Executive Engineer, namely, Guranna Muttagi as PW2.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Executive Engineer, IPC.
1 herein to the Humnabad seat of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Constituency No.5.
The said Subhash Kallur, has executed the works to the extent of 90 of Total work, There exist a subsisting companytract to the extent of 10 of work with Subhash Kallur.
P18 and the affidavit dated 13.8.1999, Ex.
The Executive Engineer, Who was in charge of the works during the relevant period has stated in his desposition that on 11.8.1999 he had received a letter from respondent seeking issuance of No Dues Certificate as the latter proposed to companytest the election.
In order to prove the alleged falsity of the claim of the Returned Candidate that the he had handed over the letter dated 11.8.1999 Ex.
45 to 46 Lower Mullamary Project.
R1 , the respondent had given a numberice of unilateral termination of the companytract and clearly expressed his unwillingness to undertake the remaining companystruction work since he desired to companytest the assembly election.
He admitted that on the original letter he had put the date as 14.9.1999 and it companytains an official seal showing the dates 15.9.1999 on which entry of its receipt was recorded in the Inward Register at Sr.
The period fixed for companypletion of companytract was six months including the monsoon season.
The High Court accepted the letter and the affidavit as genuine documents and as having been submitted on the dates mentioned in them.
