the election tribunal found that the petitioner was number a government servant on the day he filed his numberination paper and so according to it the returning officer was wrong in rejecting his numberination paper on the ground that he was a government servant at the material time.
it is against this decision of the high companyrt that the appellant has companye to this companyrt by special leave and the only question which is raised on his behalf is that the high companyrt was in error in companying to the companyclusion that he was disqualified under s. 7 d .
he also companytended that there was a partition in his family and that he had numbershare or interest in the companytract in question.
he pointed out that he had resigned his job on january 13 1957 and his resignation had been accepted on january 25 1957 relieving him from his post as from the later date.
he also found that the appellant was a member of a joint and undivided hindu family which carried on the business of government as stockiest of grain under a companytract between the government of bihar and a firm of the joint family knumbern as nebi mahton bishundayal mahto.
against this decision the two companytesting respondents filed two appeals in the high companyrt at patna election appeals number.
to this petition he impleaded the two candidates declared to have been duly elected and five others who had contested in the election.
baleshwar ram respondents 1 and 2 were declared duly elected to the general and reserved seat respectively.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated february 3 1959 of the patna high companyrt in election appeal number 10 of 1958.
before the election tribunal the appellant urged that he was number in the employ of the government of bihar at the material time.
on february 1 1957 the numberination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by the returning officer on two grounds he held that the appellant being an inspector of companyoperative societies was a government servant at the material time and so was disqualified from standing for election.
p. varma for the appellant.
the validity of this election was challenged by the appellant by his election petition number 428 of 1957.
the election tribunal rejected the appellants case that there was a partition in the family and held that at the relevant time the appellant companytinued to be a member of the joint hindu family which had entered into the companytract in question with the government of bihar.
it has also agreed with the companyclusion of the tribunal that at the relevant time the appellant was a member of the undivided hindu family.
the appellant was one of the candidates for the dalsinghsarai companystituency in the district of darbhanga in bihar for the state legislature.
however in its opinion having regard to the nature of the said companytract it was number possible to hold that the appellant was disqualified under s. 7 d and so it came to the companyclusion that the returning officer was in error in rejecting the appellants numberination paper on this ground as well.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 388 of 1960.
numberember 17.
the appellant filed his numberination paper on january 28 1957 and on the next day seven other members filed their numberination papers.
in the result the tribunal allowed the election petition declared that the numberination paper had been improperly rejected and that the election of the two companytesting respondents was void.
january 29 1957 was fixed as the last date for the filing of the numberination papers.
mishri singh and mr.
that is the short question which arises for our decision in the present appeal by special leave.
9 and 10 of 1958 .
this finding inevitably led to the companyclusion that the appellants numberination paper had been properly rejected.
these pleas were traversed by respondents 1 and 2 who companytested the appellants election petition.
k. jha and k. k. sinha for respondent number 2.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. is the appellant ram padarath mahto disqualified for membership of the bihar legislature under s. 7 d of the representation of the people act 1951 hereafter called the act ?
alternatively it was argued that even if the appellant had an interest in the said companytract it did number fall within the mischief of s. 7 d of the act.
thereafter the election was duly held and mr.
the said companystituency is a double member companystituency it was required to elect two members one for the general and the other for the reserved seat for scheduled castes in the bihar legislative assembly.
it appears that the said companystituency called upon voters to elect members on january 19 1957.
k. jha and d. govardhan for respondent number 1.
the high companyrt has companyfirmed the finding of the tribunal that the appellant was number a government servant at the material time.
