If the rejection was improper the petition would have to be allowed.
It also held that Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao were in receipt of companysiderable remuneration and were, therefore, holding offices of profit.
The High Court by its judgment, dated February 26, 1958, allowed the appeal and held that the offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were number offices under the Government.
It was alleged in the petition that Patels and Shanbhogs were hereditary village officers and therefore were number holders of offices of profit under the Government.
142 of 1957.
The election with which the case is companycerned, was held on March 8, 1957, for choosing members for the Mysore State Legislative Assembly.
The appellant was the sole respondent to that petition.
It was said that they were really representatives of the village companymunity, and only acted as agents of that companymunity or as liaisons between it and the Government, and that in any event they were number holders of offices of profit because the amount of money receivable by them in respect of their offices was very small and out of all proportion to the work done by them.
The six petitioners then appealed to the High Court of Mysore.
One of the companystituencies for the purposes of election to that Assembly was known as Harihar.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 26, 1958, of the Mysore High Court in Misc.
As a result of this rejection two candidates were left to companytest the election and the appellant, who was one of them, was declared elected as he obtained the larger number of votes at the poll.
The petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal by its order dated September 10, 1957.
251 of 1958.
Six electors of the Haribar companystituency then filed the election petition for a declaration under s. 100 1 c of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that the election of the appellant was void on the ground that the numberination papers of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao had been improperly rejected.
The numberination papers filed by three persons, namely, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao for election from that companystituency were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the first two of them were Patels and the third a Shanbhog of certain villages in Mysore and as such they were all holders of offices of profit under the Mysore Government and companysequently disqualified from membership of the Assembly under Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It 1169 arises out of a petition presented under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void.
Appeal No.
191 of the Constitution, for being chosen as members of a legislative assembly.
It held that the companyditions of service of Patels and Shanbhogs were regulated by 1170 the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, and that the mere fact that offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were hereditary was number by itself sufficient to establish that they were number offices under the Government.
Patnaik, for the appellant.
August 21.
K. Venkatranga Iyengar and N. Keshava Iyengar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J. The question for decision in this appeal is whether certain persons were holders of offices of profit under the Government and were therefore disqualified under Art.
