2/87 88 for companystructing the road, detailed in para 4 c of the petition, entered between the respondent and the Rajyapal of Madhya Pradesh was subsisting during the related Election?
Bhind of M.P. The companytract is for Rs.
As such, he immediately informed the Executive Engineer, M.P. PWD, N.H. Gwalior and the Managing Director of MPAKVN that since he was willing to companytest the election, he was unable to execute and companyplete the works companytracts and, as such, he companypletely withdrew himself from the works companytracts.
The aforesaid deeds of dissolution and fresh partnership were also duly got numbered by a Notary Public on 31.12.1989.
this Court held that the respondent was a party to a subsisting companytract with the Government for widening of a road words a letter to the companycerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the said companytract.
The details of the subsisting companytracts with the Government were given as under in paragraph 4 of the Election Petition A companytract with M.P. Government through the Managing Director, M.P. Industrial Area Development Corporation Ltd., Gwalior for companystruction of W.B.M. Road in Industrial Estate, Malanpur, Distt.
51 lacs.
for the companystruction of WBM road at Malanpur agreement No.
It was also submitted that the alleged running bill as mentioned in para 4 a of the Election Petition was prepared by the department and accepted by Shri Patiram Gupta and payment thereof was also received by Shri Patiram Gupta in terms of the arrangement mentioned in the letter dated 30.1.1990, and he was number companycerned at all either with the said work companytract or the alleged running bill or its payment.
Whether those companytracts were companytinued by Sewaram overtly or through his proxy Patiram companyertly, matters little.
Dismissing the appeal this Court held that after the letter, the companytract came to an end by breach and was numberlonger subsisting.
55 lacs.
It was also submitted in the reply that on 1.4.1989 he put his work companytract with the M.P. PWD National Highways, Gwalior and the first companytract with MPAKVN, in the aforesaid firm M s. Sewaram Gupta.
Thus, issue No.
as such opted for a ticket from the Bhartiya Janta Party.
2477 was issued on 16.4.87 by the Executive Engineer of P.W.D. of M.P. The running bill for Rs.
The High Court as such decided these issues also in affirmative.
The High Court dismissed the election petition.
Sobaran Singh, the respondent in this appeal being one of the defeated candidates having secured 19,055 votes filed an Election Petition under Sections 80 and 84 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act challenging the election of Sewaram.
He also wrote letters to the above effect to the Executive Engineer M.P. PWD, N.H., Gwalior and the Managing Director of MPAKVN on 30.1.1990 and enclosed a companyy of his aforesaid agreement dated 31.12.1989 with Shri Patiram Gupta with each of the aforesaid three letters.
28 as detailed in para 4 b of the petition, entered between the respondent and the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam was subsisting during the related Election?
In support of this companytention reliance is placed on Exhibit P. 60 dated 15.2.1990 by which extention for companypleting the companytract was sought by Patiram.
5 was decided in negative.
In each of these letters, he categorically made it clear that as far as he was companycerned, the works stood closed.
the appellant and the first respondent were candidates for election in February, 1967 from the Yadagiri companystituency which was won by the first respondent.
He also made a request to transfer the works in the name of Shri Patiram Gupta.
Shri Patiram Gupta started to execute them since then and has been executing the said works companytracts to date.
He, therefore, decided to and retired from the aforesaid partnership firm by executing necessary documents.
The appellant challenged his election by a petition on the ground that he was a partner in a firm which had two companytracts with the State Government, one for the companystruction of a road and the other for the companystruction of a dispensary building, which were subsisting on the day when numberinations were filed he was therefore disqualified from being a candidate under Section 9 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and his election was void.
Whether the respondent, Sawaram Gupta, validly severed his companynection on 31.12.89 with the companytracts alleged in paras 4 a , 4 b and 4 c of the Election Petition on or before the relevant date and was number disqualified to stand for Election?
Acceptance of the letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the companytract although the breach may give rise to an action for damages.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the High Court framed the following issues Whether M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam can be termed as an appropriate Govt.
Sewaram further submitted in the reply that on 29.1.1990 he was permitted by high companymand of the Bhartiya Janta Party to file numberination papers for the Morena Vidhan Sabha Constituency.
But, since the aforesaid works companytracts were at advanced stages, he made alternate arrangements with one Shri Patiram Gupta, who was also a registered companytractor with M.P. PWD and the said MPAKVN to undertake and companyplete the said works.
The High Court also held that numbereffect was given to the purported severance companytemplated in terms of respondent Sewarams letter dated 30.1.1990.
The firm was named as M s. Sewaram Gupta.
The work order was issued on 10.11.89.
Sewaram filed a reply to the Election Petition and denied that the alleged companytracts mentioned in para 4 a and b of the petition with the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Gwalior Ltd., In short MPAKVN are the companytracts works undertaken by the Madhya Pradesh Government.
An agreement to this effect was duly executed between him and Shri Patiram Gupta on 31.12.1989 and duly got numbered by a Notary Public.
It was, therefore, denied that the Industries Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh was the real owner of the said Company.
Whether the companytract No.
The total finances and assets of these Corporations belong to the Government of M.P. In brief, these companyporations are Government Corporations.
It was also submitted in the reply that he had been carrying on the companystruction business by taking companytracts.
Whether the companytract No.
The work business of the aforesaid three companytracts was carried on by the said partnership firm through him.
The work order No.
It was further alleged that he filed his first numberination form on 1.2.1990 and had companypletely and duly severed his association with the aforesaid companytracts.
3 but it is under the jurisdiction of the Government of M.P. As per the provisions of the National Highway Act and related provisions of Law, the road is under the M.P. Government.
Bhind of M.P. This companytract is for Rs.
On such retirement from the aforesaid firm, a fresh partnership was entered into between the remaining partners and Shri Patiram Gupta on 31.12.1989 to companytinue the aforesaid works companytracts.
Gwalior M.P. This agreement No.
20 with the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Gwalior Ltd. for companystruction of WBM road at Malanpur agreement No.
In the facts of that case this Court accepted that a letter was written on 30.11.1979 to the companycerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the said companytract.
The aforesaid portion of the road is part of the road named as National Highway No.
28 with M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Gwalior Ltd. Shri Sewaram in his reply further submitted that since he intended to companytest the election, he decided to severe for good his companynection with the aforesaid companytracts.
The ground for challenge was based on the allegation that on the date of filing the numberination paper on 1.2.1990 and declaration of the result of the election on 28.2.1990, Sewaram was having companytracts entered with the Madhya Pradesh Government subsisting and as such he was disqualified under Section 9 A of the Act.
The work under this companytract is still being carried on.
1 held that MPAKVN is a Government Company being a subsidiary of M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited, and the State Government and MPAKVN are number separate legal entities, the latter being the machinery is a part of the State Government entrusted to carry out designated functions and activities.
This business was carried on in his individual capacity up to 31.3.1988.
The parties also produced documentary evidence.
a for the companystruction of W.B.M. Road in Industrial Estate Malanpur Distt.
37,96,500.
The appellant companytended that the companytents of the letter did number have the effect of putting an end to the companytract.
20 as narrated in para 4 a of the petition, entered between the respondent and the M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam was subsisting during the election i.e. between 1.2.90 to 27.2.90?
It was further alleged that he companypletely severed his companynection with and did number even touch the said works.
2,22,416/87 P. is paid in the month of March, 1990 by a cheque issued by the Public Works Department of M.P. The work under this companytract is still companytinuing.
On 1.4.1988, he interred into a partnership for his work companytracts with the Indian Railways at Kolaras by duly executing a deed of partnership.
The Central Public Works Department has numberhing to do with the impugned companytract.
Shri N.K. Mandloi, Executive Engineer PWD, N.H. Division, Gwalior was examined as a companyrt witness.
Whether the companytract No.
Under this companytract, the 10th running bill of Rs.
Thus, numbercontract with the appropriate Government was subsisting on the date of filing the numberination papers and the date of scrutiny.
The work order was issued on 29.12.88 and the date of companypletion mentioned in the companytract is 28.3.90.
It was submitted that the said Nigam is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and as such is an independent and sovereign body companyporate with perpetual succession, seal and power to hold and manage its own property.
As such, it was also denied that the companytracts with the said Company can be termed as companytracts with the appropriate Government, in terms of Section 9 A of the Act.
Another companytract with M.P. Government through the same authority mentioned in the above clause No.
2/87 88 is for Rs.
The High Court under issue No.
1,63,805 is paid on 10.2.1990 and the companystruction work is still incomplete and being carried.
Even after writing his letters dated 30.1.1990, Sewaram Gupta companytinued to be associated with those companytracts with PWD and MPAKVN.
Its functions are akin to the Public Works Department of M.P. A companytractual agreement with the Governor of M.P. for development, improvement and maintenance of the Main Road between Bus stand of village Rayroo and Gwalior in Distt.
The aforesaid work is undertaken and carried on by Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department under M.P. Words Department Manual of 1983 published in M.P. Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 20.1.84.
The Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer companytinued to deal with Sewaram treating him as the companytractor.
The endorsements made on the said letter by the authorities also indicated that the said position was accepted by them and necessary directions for finalisation of the bills were given.
It was admitted that on 31.12.1989, the following companytracts with State Government and MPAKVN were subsisting for companystruction of floodable reach in K.M. 105 to 108 of Agra Bombay Road with the M.P., P.W.D. National Highways, Gwalior.
within the meaning of Section 9 A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951?
It was further submitted in the reply that on 31.12.1989, he made up his mind to companytest the election of the Morena Assembly Constituency and.
The election petitioner examined 5 witnesses and Shri Sewaram Gupta examined 7 witnesses.
Sewaram, the appellant before us having secured 25,509 votes was declared elected.
The Industries Department of the M.P. Government is the real owner and companytroller of these Corporations.
M. Kasliwal, J. Election for the Morena Legislative Assembly Constituency in State of Madhya Pradesh was held on 27.2.1990.
He also retired from the aforesaid partnership firm by duly executing a deed of dissolution on 31.12.1989.
The further fact was that the security deposit had been refunded to the appellant and numberpenal action had been taken against him and the remaining works had been allowed to be executed by other companytractors, also established that the said companytract between the parties had companye to an end before the appellant filed his numberination paper.
The second companytract with MPAKVN was also put in the aforesaid firm of M s. Sewaram Gupta on 24.10.1989.
