Appeal No155 of 1953
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 15th July 1953 of the Election Tribunal Nagpur in Election Petition No 3 of 1952B Sen and T P Naik for the appellant
Veda Vyas section K Kapur with him for respondent No 1 1954
February 15
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bose J
This is an appeal against a decision of the Nagpur Election Trbunal
The contest before the tribunal was about two seats in the Bhandara Parliamentary Constituency
The elections were held on five days in December 1951 and January 1952
819 Thirteen candidates filed nomination papers among them the petitioner
Of these six contested the seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes
One of these was Gangaram Thaware who has since died
The Scheduled Caste in question is the Mahar caste
Objection was taken to Thaware s nomination for the reserved seat on the ground that he was not a Mahar
It is admitted that he was born a Mahar but later in life he joined the Mabanubhava Panth
This according to the appellant is a sect which does not believe in caste and alternatively that it forms a separate caste in itself The contention was that when Gangaram Thaware joined the Panth he ceased to be a member of the Mahar caste  The objection succeeded and his nomination was rejected
The nomination of another Scheduled Caste candidate was also rejected and five others were withdrawn before the election among them was the present petitioner
That left six candidates of whom three were eligible for the reserved seat
The two who were elected were Tularam Sakhare for the Scheduled Caste seat and chaturbhuj Jasani nor the general seat
Jasani s election was challenged on the ground that he was subject to the disqualifications set out in section 7 d of the Representation of the People Act Act XLIII of 1951 as he was interested in a contract for the supply of goods to the Central Government
The Election Tribunal held that the rejection of Gangaram Thaware s nomination was improper as he continued to be a member of the Mahar caste despite his conversion to the tenets of the Mahanubhava
Panth
It also held that Chaturbhuj Jasani had a contract with the Central Government so he was disqualified
Accordingly it set aside the whole election
We will deal with Chaturbhuj Jasani s election first
Section 7d is in these terms  A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member etc
    820 dif by himself he has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to the appropriate Government Chaturbhuj Jasani was and still is a partner in the firm of Moolji Sicka  Company and it is said that at all material times the firm had a contract for the supply of bidis to the Government for the troops
Moolji Sicka  Company is a firm of bidi manufacturers
The Central Government was interested in stocking and purchasing bidis for sale to its troops through its canteens
Accordingly it placed two of the brands of bidis manufactured by this firm on its approved list and entered into an arrangement with the firm under which the firm was to sell and the Government was to buy from the firm from time to time these two brands of bidis
It was argued that this amounted to a contract for the supply of goods within the meaning of the section
It was said that the contract was embodied in four letters
We do not intend to analyse these letters in detail
It is enough to say that in our opinion no binding engagement can be spelt out of them except to this extent  Moolji Sicka  Company undertook to sell to the canteen contractors only through the Canteen Stores and not direct and undertook to pay a commission on all sales
This in our opinion constituted a Continuing arrangement under which the Canteen Stores ie the Government would be entitled to the commission on all orders placed and accepted in accordance with the arrangement  and in fact the Canteen Stores did obtain a sum of Rs 7500 in satisfaction of a claim of this kind
This money was paid long before the dates which are crucial here but the settlement illustrates that there was an arrangement of that nature and that it was a continuing one
In our opinion it continued in being even after that and the mere fact that there was no occasion for any claim subsequent to the settlement does not indicate that it was no longer alive
But except for this the letters merely set out the terms on which the parties were ready to do business with 821 each other if and when orders were placed and executed
As soon as an order was placed and accepted a contract arose
It is true this contract would be governed by the terms set out in the letters but until an order was placed and accepted there was no contract
Also each separate order and acceptance constituted a different and distinct contract see Rose and Frank Co vs J R Crompton  Bros Ltd1 The crucial dates with which we are concerned are 15th November 1951 the last date for putting in the nominations and 14th February 1952 the date on which the results were declared
The section runs A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as
The words which follow and for being need not be considered as it is enough for our purposes to use only the former
Now the words of the section are shall be disqualified for being chosen
 The choice is made by a series of steps starting with the nomination and ending with the announcement of the election
It follows that if a disqualification attaches to a candidate at any one of these stages he cannot be chosen
The disqualification alleged in this case is that Chaturbhuj Jasani had an interest in a contract or a series of contracts for the supply of goods to the Central Government
He had this interest because the contracts were made with Moolji Sicka  Company a firm of which Jasani is one of the partners
The fact of partnership is admitted but the other facts are denied
We have therefore to see whether any contract for the supply of goods to Government by Moolji Sicka  Company existed at any time on or between the relevant dates
Exhibit C is a tabular statement which sets out the dealings between the parties during certain months
It is accepted as correct by both sides
The following extracts from this statement show that Moolji Sicka  Company had an interest in a series of contracts for the sale of bidis to the Canteen Stores at and between the relevant dates
1  822 Date of order Date of invoice Price of Date of by and goods pay Canteen Stores Despatch
suppliedment 8 10 1951 18 10 1951Rs
1684 13 919 12 1951
8 10 195119 10 19513373 9 3do 17 8195126 10 195112602 8 0do 12 9 195126 10 195111426 14 6do 11 10 195126 10 19518411 14 0do 21 10 195130 11 195110125 2 9do 9 8 195129 8 195125812 12 024 12 1951 8 10 195118 10 19514793 4 9do 14 11 195122 11 19511887 9 95 I 1952 17 10 19518 11 195116534 2 022 1 1952 12 11 195120 11 19514205 15 0do 13 12 195110 1 19521397079 7 912 2 1952 14 1 195222 1 19521691 11 9do 21 12 195110 1 195216983 8 018 2 1952 12 11 195122 11 19518411 14 013 3 1952 9 1 195216 1 19525888 4 9do 23 1 195228 1 19528411 14 020 3 1952 This statement reveals that various contracts aggregating Rs 1539345 6 0 less some small sums for railway freight were outstanding at one time or another between the two crucial dates and that payments in discharge of these liabilities were made at various dates between 15th November 1951 and 20th March 1952
It also shows that orders were placed and accepted for goods priced at Rs 84659 14 3 before 15th November 1951 and that payment was not made till after that date
Therefore on 15th November 1951 goods worth Rs 84659 14 3 had still to be paid for
Then between 15th November 1951 and 14th
February 1952 further orders for goods valued at Rs 39695 8 9 were placed And accepted and they were not paid for till after 14th February 1952
It was argued that there is nothing to show that
the goods were not supplied before 15th November 1951 and before 14th February 1952
It was said on behalf of the appellant that these are the only dates which are crucial so if Moolji Sicka
 Company hid
fully 823 executed their part of the contracts before the two crucial dates the disqualification would not apply
That raises these questions 1 Does a person who has fully executed his part of a contract continue to have an interest in it till the goods are paid for  and 2 were these contracts fully executed so far as Moolji Sicka  Company s part was concerned The parties are not agreed about this so it will now be necessary to examine their letters in detail to determine the terms of the various contracts
The correspondence discloses that the Canteen Stores and Moolji Sicka  Company dealt with each other from time to time under various arrangements which they called  systems
The earliest letter we have about the transactions between these parties is one dated 30th March 1951
It shows that the system which they called the  Direct Supply System  was in use at that time
The details of the  system  are set out in an order dated 17th April 1951
Under it Moolji Sicka  Company had to send supplies of bidis direct to the Canteen Stores contractors as and when ordered
The value of the goods so supplied was to be recovered from the contractors direct and the Canteen Stores were to be informed of the sales and were to be paid a certain commission
This led to some friction and in their letter of 30th March 1951 the Canteen Stores complain that information about some of the sales to the contractors had been suppressed with the result that the Canteen Stores lost their commission
Moolji Sicka  Company replied to this on 24th April 1951 and suggested a slight change in the system namely that all orders for the goods should in future be placed through the Canteen Stores and that there should be no dealings with the contractors direct except to supply them with the goods ordered by the Canteen Stores then  they said there would be no complaint about their having been kept in the dark
This appears to have been agreed to because such of the subsequent order as are on record were placed by the Canteen Stores
824 The order dated 17th April 1951 to which we have referred above is a sample
This was considered unsatisfactory and it was felt that a change was called for
Moolji Sicka  Company s letter of 24th April 1951 shows that their complaint was that the Canteen Stores did not keep a sufficient stock of bidis on hand
They said  We feel that you can stock more of our bidis
And that will mean an added profit to you since the rebate you get on supplies made under the Direct Supply System is Rs 4 only whereas on supplies made to you we have now offered a much higher rebate  
We have therefore to request you to kindly 8stock more of our bidis
 In view of this two representatives of Moolji Sicka  Company met the Chairman of the Board of Administration who was in charge of the Canteen Stores Department on 10th July 1951
They reached certain tentative conclusions which were reduced to writing by the Canteen Stores on 11th July 1951
Their letter of that date shows that the Canteen Stores proposed to abolish the Direct Supply System in the near future but so far as Moolji Sicka  Company were
concerned they said that the system could be abolished
at once  forthwith  is the word used provided Moolji Sicka  Company would agree to supply bidis for the Bombay Calcutta and Delhi Depots of the Canteen Stores under a new system which they called the  Consignment System 
Under this the Canteen Stores were to pay as they sold
But the new system was intended only for the Bombay Calcutta and Delhi Depots of the Canteen Stores
The letter goes on to say that for the Pathankot and Srinagar Depots the supplies would have to be made on the  Outright Purchase Basis 
These proposals were embodied under the heading  Future Business RelationsThen there was a provision for what was called theTransition Period 
That said that Untilstocks could be placed in our depots it was agreed that you would supply your bidis direct against our orders and on such supplies you would allow us rebate as at present
825 These proposals were sent to Moolji Sicka  Company for confirmation
It will be seen that the  letter makes four proposals 1That so far as Moolji Sicka  Company were concerned  The Direct Supply System  should be terminated at once though so far as other manufacturers were concerned it should continue in force for some time longer 2That in its place the Calcutta Bombay and Delhi Depots were to be supplied under a new system called the  Consignment System  3That the Pathankot and Srinagar Depots were to be supplied under another new system called the Outright Purchase System  4That during the transition period the Direct Supply System was to continue in operation  as at present  even with Moolji Sicka and Company
Moolji Sicka  Company replied on 16th July 1951 saying that they were prepared to accept these terms provided the Canteen Stores confirmed certain modificatioins which Moolji Sicka  Company proposed
They were as follows 1Regarding the  Transition Period  they said We are pleased to note that you will soon be abolishing the Direct Supply System
But it should be applied to all suppliers at the same time
Till then we should be allowed to supply any orders received from the Canteen Contractors
You should inform us of the date on which Direct Supply System will be discontinued
2 Regarding the new proposals under the heading Future Business Relations Moolji Sicka  Company said Goods sent to your depot on consignment basis must be either returned to us or paid for fully within three months of the date of supply
We understand that the system
of supplying goods on consignment basis will be discontinued in about six months  time
 107 826 3 They said  And for this purpose we have agreed to offer you Rs 7500 in full and final settlement of all your claims to date and upon the understanding of your acceptance of the terms for future business
They concluded  Upon receiving your confirmation we shall instruct our Bombay office to send you the cheque for the amount stated above
 The Rs 7500 was what the Canteen Stores claimed from Moolji Sicka  Company as compensation for breach of the agreement under which Moolji Sicka  Company had agreed not to sell to the Canteen Contractors without paying the Canteen Stores a commission
Neither side was able to produce exact figures but this was the estimate made by the Canteen Stores of the loss suffered by them by reason of that breach
It will be seen that the proposal about the  Consignment System  which the Canteen Stores made was that they would pay Moolji Sicka  Company only when they sold the stocks with which Moolji Sicka  Company were to supply them for stocking their depots at Calcutta Bombay and Delhi
Moolji Sicka  Company were not satisfied with this and said that the Canteen Stores must either return or pay for all stocks supplied within three months from the date of supply
The Canteen Stores replied on 19th July 1951 as follows 1 They accepted Moolji Sicka  Company s suggestion that when the Direct Supply System was abolished the abolition would apply to all suppliers of bidis
2 As regards the  Consignment Account System they did not turn down the proposals but observed that they were thinking of doing away with that too in favour of the  Outright Purchase System and warned Moolji Sicka  Company that in view of that it might not be necessary to place any of Moolji Sicka  Company s stocks in their depots
827 3 They wanted a six months  guarantee period in place of three months
The letter concludes Although under the system of provisioningadopted by us and as explained to you during our discussions it may not be that we shall at any time have any stocks surplus to our requirements or stocks which have not been disposed of within the guarantee period but should there be any solitary occasions will you please confirm that you will replace Such stock with fresh stock without any cost to us We await your agreement by return
 They also said We now await your cheque for Rs 7500
Moolji Sicka  Company replied on 26th July 1951 and commenced by saying  We agree to all you have said in page one of your letter under reply
 Regarding the guarantee they said they could not agree to six months but would agree to three provided the guarantee was limited to goods found to be defective because of faults in manufacture
They concluded We have also to pay you Rs 7500 as per our  letter dated 16th July 1951 and asked how the Canteen Stores would like the payment to be made
The Canteen Stores replied on 31st July 1951 and explained what they meant by the  guarantee period 
Bidis deteriorate by keeping so the idea was to have a system under which they could be returned within six months to prevent their deterioration
They explain that this is in the interests of the manufacturer because 1 it will not bring their brands into disrepute for that would be the inevitable result if stale bidis which had deteriorated were sold in the canteens and 2 if the period is made too short then the goods will not stay in our depots and in the stalls of our canteens and contractors long enough to sell and hence our depots will always be anxious to 828 return these stocks
The result will be obvious
Your sales will be lower
They continue  We therefore consider that the period of six months should be the least before the expiry of which goods may be taken back by you and replaced  
The period of three months within which you expect us to return your stocks should we find them not moving will be too short
 They conclude by saying that they hope Moolji Sicka  Company will agree to the six months
Now it will be seen that all this correspondence related to the proposals about the  Consignment System  which were first mooted on 11th July 1951
Moolji Sicka  Company complained on 24th April 1951 that the Canteen Stores were not keeping large enough stocks of their bidis and they asked the Canteen Stores to stop the Direct Supply System and purchase stocks direct
The Canteen Stores were naturally reluctant to keep large stocks on hand because bidis deteriorate and become unsaleable in course of time
Therefore they proposed the  pay as we sell  system that is they would keep stocks of bidis and pay for whatever they sold
But the problem of unsold stocks deteriorating still remained
Who was to be responsible The obvious answer was that the manufacturers should take back the unsold stocks before they were too far gone and in their place send fresh consignments for sale on the  pay as we sell  basis
We say obvious because the manufacturers could use the stale tobacco by re curing and blending it or could use it for other purposes provided it was not too far gone
The proposal therefore was that the Canteen Stores were to keep stocks of Moolji Sicka  Company s bidis in their depots and canteens pay for what they sold and return all unsold stocks within six months
Moolji Sicka  Company were then to replace them with fresh stocks which would be paid for when sold
This was agreed to in the main but the point at which they were at issue was the six months
Mooli Sicka  Company proposed three months while the 829 Canteen Stores wanted six months
We think the argument used in the letter of 31st July 1951 that  the result will be obvious
Your sales will be lower  can only have reference to an arrangement of this kind otherwise no question of the sales being lower could arise
In the case of an outright sale the sale would be complete when the order was executed and except for bidis found to be defective due to manufacture Moolji Sicka  Company would have no further concern with them
The sentences the goods may be taken back by you and replaced and  should we find them not moving  can only refer to these proposals about the Consignment System  In any case it certainly includes this system
Moolji Sicka  Company s reply is dated 9th August 1951
They say We are in receipt of your letter No 7B29 17 1299 dated 31st July 1951 and are pleased to extend the guarantee period from three to six months
We are sure this will now enable you to keep adequate stocks of our bidis
Awaiting your esteemed orders
 This is an acceptance of the interpretation of the  guarantee period  as given by the Canteen Stores in their letter of 31st July 1951
The words now and adequate relate to the dispute which started on 24th April 1951 when Moolji Sicka  Company complained that the Canteen Stores were not keeping adequatestocks of their bidis in their depots
The subsequent correspondence was aimed at finding out ways and means to meet this objection and at the same time satisfy both sides
It all ended by Moolji Sicka  Company accepting the terms set out in the letter of 31st July 1951
We are accordingly of opinion that Moolji Sick  Company accepted the  Consignment System  on 9th August 1951
That imported a pay as we sell arrangement with an obligation to take back stocks unsold within six months and replace them with fresh stocks which would be paid for when sold
in the transition period  the Direct Supply System was also to continue
That meant that there would be two systems in force for a time in certain depots the Consignment 830 System  regarding stocks ordered for the stocking up of the Calcutta Bombay and Delhi depots of the Canteen Stores and the  Direct Supply System  till such time as the depots were stocked
The third system of  Outright Purchase  was limited for the time being to the Pathankot and Srinagar depots
Both the Direct Supply and the Consignment systems were abolished together on list November 1951 see the Canteen Stores  letter dated 24th November 1951
But the obligation to take back unsold stocks within the six months  period continued to attach to all contracts for consignment to the Calcutta Bombay and Delhi depots made between 9th August 1951 and 31st October 1951
The tabular statement shows that the following contracts for consignment to one or other of these three depots were made during that period
The date of the invoice is the date of the execution of the order and thus of the acceptance of the proposal contained in the order
Date of Invoice Depot Price of goodsd date  despatch supplied payment
1 10 1951 Bombay
Rs 5056 2 0 15 11 1951 13 10 1951 do
13536 4 6 do 18 10 1951 Delhi 1684 13 919 12 1951 19 10 1951 Calcutta 3373 9 3 do 18 10 1951 Bombay 4793 4 924 12 1951 The value of these orders comes to Rs 28444 2 3
The obligations under these several contracts continued from 1st April 1952 to 18th April 1952
It was argued that assuming that to be the case then there were no longer any contracts for the supply of goods in existence but only an obligation arising under the guarantee clause
We are unable to accept such a narrow construction
This term of the contract whatever the parties may have chosen to call it was a term in a contract for the supply of goods
When a contract consists of a number of terms and conditions each condition does not form a separate contract but is an item in the one contract of which it is a part
The consideration for each 831 condition in a case like this is the consideration for the contract taken as a whole
It is not split up into several considerations apportioned between each term separately
But quite apart from that the obligation even under this term was to supply fresh stocks for these three depots in exchange for the stocks which were returned and so even when regarded from that narrow angle it would be a contract for the supply of goods
It is true they are replacements but a contract to replace goods is still one for the supply of the goods which are sent as replacements
But even if all that be disregarded and it be assumed that Moolji Sicka  Company had fully performed their part of the contract by placing the goods on rails before 15th November 1951 we are of opinion that the contracts were not at an end until the vendors were paid and the contracts were fully discharged
The words of the sections are if he has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to  the appropriate Government
 There can be no doubt that these various transactions were contracts and there can equally be no doubt that they were contracts for the supply of the goods
Whether they were contracts for the supply of goods to the Government is a matter which we shall deal with presently
But we have no doubt that they were contracts for the supply of goods
The question then is does a contract for the supply of goods terminate when the goods are supplied or does it continue in being till payment is made and the contract is fully discharged by performance on both sides 9 We are of opinion that it continues in being till it is fully discharged by performance on both sides
It was contended on the strength
of certain observations in some English cases that the moment a contract is fully executed on one side and all that remains is to receive payment from the other then the contract terminates and a new relationship of debtor and creditor takes its place
With the utmost respect we are unable to agree
There is always a possibility of the liability being disputed before actual payment is made and the vendor may 832 have to bring an action to establish his claim to payment
The existence of the debt depends on the contract and cannot be established without showing that payment was a term of the contract
It is true the contractor might abandon the contract and sue on quantum meruit but if the other side contested and relied on the terms of the contract the decision would have to rest on that basis
In any case as we are not bound by the dicta and authority of those cases even assuming they go that far we prefer to hold that a contract continues in being till it is fully discharged by both sides see the observations of Gibson J in O Carroll vs Hasting81
To use the language of O Brien LCJ in that case at page 599 these contracts have not been merged abandoned rescinded extinguished or satisfied and if any demur was made as to payment before payment was actually made he could have sued upon the contract specially or if he sued for work done at the request of the defendants the contract would have been
a part of his necessary proofs We agree with the learned Lord Chief Justice in thinking that it is far fetched to contend that a man is not concerned in the contract or security by which he can enforce payment
 The same view was taken by Costello J in an Indian case in Satyendrakumar Das vs Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners8 of Dacca2
Counsel for the appellant relied strongly on certain English cases
They were all examined and distinguished in the above decisions
They either turned on special facts or on the words of a statute which are not the same as ours
The leading case appears to be Royse vs Birley3 
But the decision turned on the language of the English statute which the learned Judges construed to mean that the contract must be executory on the contractor s part before the English Act can apply
Tranton vs Astor4 follows the earlier ruling
The statute with which Darling J was dealing 1 at 608
2 ILR from p 193 onwards
3 4 833 in Cox vs Truscott1 is nearer the language of our Act
He hesitatingly proceeded on the debtor and creditor basis
We need not go further than this because as we have said if these decisions cannot be distinguished then we must with respect differ
We hold therefore that these contracts which Moolji Sicka  Company had entered into with the Government subsisted on 15th November 1951 and on 14th February 1952 and that as Chatturbhuj Jasani the appellant was a partner in the firm he also had both a share and an interest in them on the crucial dates
That brings us to article 299 1 of the Constitution
It states All contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President  and all such contracts made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the President  by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise The contention was that as these contracts were not expressed to be made by the President they are void
Cages were cited tons under the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935
Certain sections in these Acts were said to be similar to article 299
We do not think that they are but in any case the rulings under section 30 2 of the Government of India Act 1915 as amended by the Government of India Act of 1919 disclose a difference of opinion
Thus Krihsnaji Nilkant vs Secrtary of State2 ruled that contracts with the Secretary of State must be by a deed executed on behalf of the Secretary of State for India and in his name
They cannot be made by correspondence or orally
Secretary of State vs Bhagwandas3 and Devi Prasad Sri Krihhna Prasad Ltd vs Secretary of State1 held they could be made by correspondence
Secretary of State V OT Sarin  Company1 took an intermediate vie and held that though contracts in the prescribed form could not be enforced by either side 1 4 AIR 1941 All 377
2 AIR 1937 Bom
449451
5 ILR 11 Lah
3 AIR 1938 Bom
108 834 a claim for compensation under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act would lie
Province of Bengal vs section L Puri1 took a strict view and held that even letters headed Government of India did not comply with the rule in section 175 3 of the Government of India Act 1935
The Federal Court was called upon to construe section 40 1 of the Ninth Schedule of the Government of India Act 1935
It held that the directions in it were only directory and not mandatory and the same view was taken of article 166 1 of the present Constitution by this court in Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs State of Bombay2
None of these provisions is quite the same as article 299
For example in article 166 as also in section 401 of the Government of India Act of 1935 there is a clause which says that orders and instruments and other proceedings Made and expressed in the name of the Governor or Governor General in Council and authenticated in the manner prescribed shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument etc made or executed by the Governor or Governor General in Council
It was held that the provisions had to be read as a whole and when that was done it became evident that the intention of the legislature and the Constitution was to dispense with proof of the due making and execution when the form prescribed was followed but not to invalidate orders and instruments otherwise valid
Article 2991 does not contain a similar clause so we are unable to apply the same reasoning here
In our opinion this is a type of contract to which section 2363 of the Indian Contract Act would apply
This view obviates the inconvenience and injustice to innocent persons which the Federal Court felt in J K Gas Plant Manufacturing Co Ltd vs The King
Emperor 3and at the same time protects Government
We feel that some reasonable meaning must 1 2  at 632 633
3 at 156 157 835 be attached to article 2991
We do not think the provisions were inserted for the sake of mere form
We feel they are there to safeguard Government against unauthorised contracts
If in fact a contract is unauthorised or in excess of authority it is right that Government should be safeguarded
On the other hand an officer entering into a contract on behalf of Government can always safeguard himself by having recourse to the proper form
In between is a large class of contracts probably by far the greatest in numbers which though authorised are for one reason or other not in proper form
It is only right that an innocent contracting party should not suffer because of this and if there is no other defect or objection we have no doubt Government will always accept the responsibility
If not its interests are safeguarded as we think the Constitution intended that they should be
In the present case there can be no doubt that the Chairman of the Board of Administration acted on behalf of the Union Government and his authority to contract in that capacity was not questioned
There can equally be no doubt that both sides acted in the belief and on the assumption which was also the fact that the goods were intended for Government purposes namely amenities for the troops
The only flaw is that the contracts were not in proper form and so because of this purely technical defect the principal could not have been sued
But that is just the kind of case that section 2303 of the Indian Contract Act is designed to meet
It would in our opinion be disastrousto hold that the hundreds of Government officers who have daily to enter into a variety of contracts often of a petty nature and sometimes in an emergency cannot contract orally or through correspondence and that every petty contract must be effect ed by a ponderous legal document couched in a particular form
it may be that Government will not be bound by the contract in that case but that is a very different thing from saying that the contracts as such are void and of no effect
It only means that the principal cannot be sued  but we take it there would 836 be nothing to prevent ratification especially if that was for the benefit of Government
There is authority for the view that when a Government officer acts in excess of authority Government is bound if it ratifies the excess see The Collector of Masulipatam vs Cavaly Venkata Narrainapah1
We accordingly hold that the contracts in question here are not void simply because the Union Government could not have beensued on them by reason of article 2991
Now section 7d of the Representation of the People Act does not require that the contracts at which it strikes should be enforceable against the Government all it requires
is that the contracts should be for the supply of goods to the Government
The contracts in question are just that and so are hit by the section
The purpose of the Act is to maintain the purity of the legislatures and to avoid a conflict between duty and interest
It is obvious that the temptation to place interest before duty is just as great when there is likely to be some difficulty in recovering the money from Government for example if Government were to choose not to ratify the contracts as when there is none
In our opinion the Election Tribunal was right in disqualifying Chatturbhuj Jasani
We now turn to Gangaram Thaware
He stood as a Scheduled Caste candidate and his nomination was rejected on the ground that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste in question namely the Mahars
The only question here is whether he ceased to be a Mahar when he joined the Mahanubhava Panth
This gave rise to much controversy and we have been presented with many conflicting opinions
Thus the Imperial Gazetteer of India Voluime XXI page 3012 states that the founder of the sect repudiated the caste system as also a multiplicity of God7f3 and insisted on the monotheistic principle
At the same time it says that he taught his disciples to eat with none but 1 8 MIA 529 at 554
837 the initiated and to break off all former ties of caste and religion
Russell in Volume IV of his Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces says that the Manbhaos Mahanubhau is a religious sector order which has  now 1911 become a caste
The Central Provinces Ethnographic Survey Volume IX says the same thing at page 107 and at page 110 and adds that members of the sect often act as priests or gurus to the Mahars
As against this the Election Tribunal has quoted a number of opinions which tend the other way
Thus V B Kolte says at page 247 of his Shri Chandradhar Charitra that no serious attempt has been made by them to abolish caste and Ketkar says at page 76 Volume XVIII of the 1926 edition of his Maharashtriya Dhnyankosh that there are two divisions among the Mahanubhavas one of Sanyasig who renounce the world and the other a secular one
The latter observe the caste system and follow the rituals of their own caste and carry on social contacts with their caste people and marry among them
Similar views are expressed by Bal Krishna Mohanubhav Shastri
But we are not really concerned with their theology
What we have to determine are the social and political consequences of such conversions and that we feel must be decided in a common sense practical way rather than on theoretical and theocratic grounds
Conversion brings many complexities in its train for it imports a complex composite composed of many ingredients
Religious beliefs spiritual experience and emotion and intellectual conviction mingle with more material considerations such as severance of family and social ties and the casting off or retention of old customs and observances
The exact proportions of the mixture vary from person to person
At one extreme there is bigoted fanaticism bitterly hostile towards the old order and at the other an easy going laxness and tolerance which makes the conversion only nominal
There is no clear out dividing line and it is not a matter which can be viewed from only one angle
838 Looked at from the secular point of view there are three factors which have to be considered 1 the reactions of the old body 2 the intentions of the individual himself and 3 the rules of the new order
If the old order is tolerant of the new faith and sees no reason to outcaste or ex communicate the convert and the individual himself desires and intends to retain his old social and political ties the conversion is only nominal for all practical purposes and when we have to consider the legal and political rights of the old body the views of the new faith hardly matter
The new body is free to ostracise and outcaste the convert from its fold if he does not adhere to its tenets but it can hardly claim the right to interfere in matters which concern the political rights of the old body when neither the dld body nor the convert is seeking either legal or political favours from the new as opposed to purely spiritual advantage
On the other hand if the convert has shown by his conduct and dealings that his break from the old order is so complete and final that he no longer regards himself as a member of the old body and there is no reconversion and readmittance to the old fold it would be wrong to hold that he can nevertheless claim temporal privileges and political advantages which are special to the old order
In our opinion broadly speaking the principles laid down by the Privy Council in the case of a Hindu convert to Christianity apply here not of course the details of the decision but the broad underlying principle
In Abraham vs Abraham1 their Lordships say  He  the convert  may renounce the old law by which he was bound as he has renounced his old religion or if he thinks fit he may abide by the old law notwithstanding he has renounced the old religion
 The only modification here is that it is not only his choice which must be taken into account but also the views of the body whose religious tenets he has 1 9 MIA 199 at 242 243 and 244
839 renounced because here the right we are considering is the right of the old body the right conferred on it as a special privilege to send a member of its own fold to Parliament
But with that modification the observations which follow
apply in their broad outline
The profession of Christianity releases the convert from the trammels of the Hindu law but it does not of necessity involve any change of the rights or relations of the  convert in matters with which Christianity has no concern such as his rights and interests in and his powers over property
The convert though not bound as to such matters either by the Hindu law or by any other positive law may by his course of conduct after his conversion have shown by what law he intended to be governed as to these matters
He may have done so either by attaching himself to a class which as to these matters has adopted and acted
upon some particular law or by having himself observed some family usage or custom and nothing can surely be more just than that the rights and interests in his property and his powers over it should be governed by the law which he has adopted or the rules which he has observed
 Now what are the facts here  Whatever the views of the founder of this sect may have been about caste it is evident that there has been no rigid adherence to them among his followers in later years
They have either changed their views or have not been able to keep a tight enough control over converts who join them and yet choose to retain their old caste customs and ties
We need not determine whether the Mahanubhava tenets encourage a repudiation of caste only as a desirable ideal or make it a fundamental of the faith because it is evident that present day Mahanubhavas admit to their fold persons who elect to retain their old caste customs
That makes it easy for the old caste to regard the converts as one of themselves despite the conversion which for all practical purposes is only ideological and involves no change of status
840 Now no witness has spoken of any outcasting neither outcasting in general nor in this special case
No single instance has been produced in which any person who has joined this sect from the Mahar community has ever been outcasted from the Mahars for that reason and as the sect is said to be over 1000 years old therehas been time enough for such instances to accumulate
Further no instance has been produced of a Mahanubhava marrying outside his or her old caste whereas there are instances of Mahanubhavas who have married non Mahanubhavas belonging to their own caste
Nene P W 1 Sadasheo P W 3 Sitaram P W 4 and Haridas P W 5 say that a Mahar convert does not lose his caste on conversion
He is admitted to all caste functions and can marry in the community
Of these Sadasheo P W 3 and Haridas P W 5 are Mahars
There is no evidence to rebut this
The witnesses on the other side take refuge in theory and when confronted with actual facts evade the issue by saying that Mahanubhavas who do these things are not real Mahanubhavas
Harendra R W 1 is a Mahanubhava Guru and so ought to know but he affects an otherworldly indifference to mundane affairs and says that as he does not lead a worldly life he does not know whether converts retain their caste distinctions and whether there are inter dinings and inter marriages in the Mahanubhava fold itself among those who belonged to different castes before conversion
Shankar R W 2 says that a convert loses his caste on conversion but gives no instance of ostracism from the old fold
In any case his evidence is confined to the sanyasi order among the Mahanubhavas because he says that every person who becomes a convert to this sect must renounce the world and cannot marry
When pinned down in cross exami nation he had to admit that he did know two or three Mahanubhavas who were leading a worldly life but he meets that by saying that they are not real Mahanubhavas
Chudaman R W 3 evades the issue in the same way
He is a Mahanubhava Pujari and so is 841 another person who ought to have special knowledge
Despite that he says he cannot give a single instance of a person belonging to one caste initiated into the Mahanubhava sect marrying a person of another caste initiated into the same Panth
When further pressed he said the question did not arise as a man lost his caste on conversion
On this evidence and after considering the historical material placed before us we conclude that conversion to this sect imports little beyond an intellectual acceptance of certain ideological tenets and does not alter the convert s caste status at any rate so far as the householder section of the Panth is concerned
So much for the caste consciousness on both sides
Now considering Gangaram Thaware the individual we find that he was twice married and on both occasions to Mahar girls who were not Mahanubhavas at the time of their respective marriages
His first wife was never converted
His second wife was converted after her marriage
The witnesses say  he was still regarded as a Mahar after his conversion and always looked upon himself as a Mahar and identified himself with the caste
No one on the other side denies this
As we have shown they took shelter behind generalities and evaded the issue by saying that in that case he cannot be a real Mahanubhava
If he was not then he must have continued a Mahar even on their view
The evidence also discloses that Gangaram Thaware led Mahar agitations and processions as a member and leader of the Mahar caste
In 1936 he contested the election for the Provincial Assembly as a Mahar candidate
No one appears to have questioned his competency
And lastly he declared himself to be a Mahar in the verification to his nomination form in the present election as also in an affidavit filed before the Returning Officer who rejected his nomination
The Returning Officer described that as a cleverly worded document
 We have read it and find nothing tricky or crooked in it Therefore applying the test in Abraham vs Abraham1 we hold that despite his 1 9 MIA 199
109 842 conversion he continued to be a Mahar and so his nomination form was wrongly rejected
That affects the whole election
The other points argued before the Election Tribunal were not pressed before us
We therefore uphold the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
A contract for the supply of goods does not terminate when the goods are supplied it continues into being till payment is made and the contract is fully discharged by performance on both sides
O Carroll vs Hastings  1905 2 IH 590 and Satyendrakumar Das vs Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Dacca ILR58 Cal
180 relied upon
The firm Moolji Sicka and Company of which the candidate was a partner had entered into contracts with the Central 106 818 Government for the supply of goods
The contracts subsisted on he crucial dstes November 15 1951 and February 14 1952
November 15 1951 was the last date for putting in nominations and February 14 1952 was the date on which results were declared  Held that the candidate had both a share and an interest in the contracts for the supply of goods to the appropriate Government on the crucial dates and was thus disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament by virtue of the disqualification set out in section 7d of the Representation of the People Act XLIII of 1951
Held further that the contention that the contracts in question were void because the Union Government could not be sued by reason of article 2991 of the Constitution as the contracts were not expressed to be made by the President was without force because this was the type of case to which a 2303 of the Indian Contract Act would apply
When a Government officer acts in excess of authority Government is bound if it ratified the excess
The Collector of Masulipatam vs Cavaly Venkata Narrainapah 8 MIA 529 reliecl upon
A member of the Mahar caste which is one of the Scheduled Castes continues to be a member of the Mahar caste despite his conversion to the tenets of the Mahanubhava Panth as such conversion imports little beyond  an intellectual  acceptance of certain ideological tenets and does not alter the convert s caste status
Abraham vs Abraham 9 MIA 199 relied upon