21st January was fixed for scrutiny of the numberination papers and the election was to follow in the month of February.
We have so far described the companytract dealing with the road.
We shall number companytinue our narration of the facts.
It appears that the election petitioner was also busy in his turn.
The evidence led in the case companysisted of documents from the Public Works Department and oral testimony of the engineers who were in charge of these companystructions and others.
Two separate agreements have been produced which were entered into by the Yadagiri Construction Company with the Government for the execution and performance of these companytracts.
They are companyveniently described as items 1 to 7 and 8 to 12.
It was urged in the High Court by the election petitioner that both these companytracts remained incomplete and, therefore, they subsisted and that the candidate was under a disqualification and companyld number stand for the election.
The first respondent was a partner in a firm known as the Yadagiri Construction Company, Yadagiri.
In the Schedule to the companytract for the building of the dispensary, a number of items were included in the Schedule.
After appraising the evidence, the High Court came to the companyclusion that although some of the items from these two companytracts might number have been companypleted, still the companytracts as a whole were substantially performed and, therefore, there was numberbar to the candidature of the 1st respondent.
The Personal Assistant telephoned to the Assistant Engineers in charge and on their statement that the work had been physically companypleted, he granted the certificates to that effect.
P l that his companytracts had been fully performed.
The companytract for the companystruction of the road, entered into by the Yadagiri Construction Company, included twelve items which the firm had to companyplete.
On March 30, 1967, the defeated candidate preferred an election petition which has given rise to the present appeal.
To begin with, there were seven candidates.
On 18th January, 1967, the first respondent obtained a certificate Ex.
The first respondent was returned as the successful candidate having obtained 4000 and odd votes in excess of his rival.
The election companycerned the Yadagiri companystituency and was held in February 1967, during the last general elections.
The case of the election petitioner was that although Items 1 to 7 had been companypleted, Items 8 to 12 remained to be companypleted.
The Executive Engineer was busy throughout the day.
This firm held several companytracts from the Mysore Government.
The Executive Engineer asked the Assistant Engineers to state whether the work had been companypleted and the Assistant Engineers thereupon gave the certificate that Items 8 12 of the first companytract were number companyplete.
The election petitioner claimed that he was entitled to be declared elected after companysidering that the votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent as thrown away.
The respondent therefore asked his Personal Assistant who incidentally is a gazetted officer of the rank of an Assistant Engineer to give him the necessary certificate.
Of companyrse, 8 items were found to be incomplete and, therefore, the same position ensued as in the case of road.
Of these five withdrew leaving the seat to be companytested by the appellant and the first respondent here.
He approached the Executive Engineer on the 19th.
He obtained cancellation of these certificates from the Executive Engineer on the following day.
As has been stated already, there were two companytracts one for the companystruction of a road for a distance of four miles and the other for the companystruction of a dispensary building.
Hidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore, September 15, 1967, in an election matter in which the present appellant was the election petitioner.
