Case: N. Satyanathan Vs. K. Subramanyan And Others

The appellant and respondents 1 to 3 contested the last general election from the Dharmapuri Parliamentary Constituency in the district of Salem in the state of Madras. Respondents 4 to 10 who were added subsequently by an order of the Tribunal were also candidates for election. Their nominations also had been held to be valid but they ultimately withdrew their candidature before the polling took place. The appellant was in due course declared to have been elected to the House of the People.Thereafter, on the 5th March, 1952 the 1st respondent filed an election petition before the Election Commission contesting the appellants election on the ground that the appellant was disqualified under Section 7(d) of the Act as, from the date of his nomination and until the date of election and after, the appellant had a contract with the Government of India in the Postal Department for the transport of postal mail which was a service undertaken by the Government of India.At this stage it is necessary to state that it is admitted that the appellant is and has been the holder of a stage carriage service permit (Ex. B-2) dated the 26th April 1949, issued by the Regional Transport Authority. Salem, Madras. It was one of the conditions of the said permit that if called upon the appellant will enter into an agreement with the Government of India for the transport of postal articles and mail bags. In pursuance of that obligation the appellant entered into a registered agreement with the Government of India on the 16th November 1949 (Ex. A-3) to be noticed in detail hereinafter.After the appellant had filed his nomination paper, the 1st respondent by his petition dated the 28th November 1951 raised the objection to the effect that his nomination should be rejected on the ground that he had entered into a contract with the Government of India for his own benefit for the transport of mail between Salem and Yercaud. The Returning Officer for the Dharmapuri Parliamentary constituency, Salem, by his orders (Ex. A-2) of the same date overruled the objection holding that the service rendered by the appellant of carrying mail is not under an agreement but on an imperative order of the Government under Rule 160-B of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules. Apparently the registered agreement (Ex. A-3) had not been placed before him.3. To the election petition filed by the 1st respondent the appellant filed his written statement on the 28th May 1952 denying that he was disqualified for election as a member of Parliament by virtue of the provisions of Section 7(d) of the Act. His contention wasis the exclusive privilege of the Government of India to convey all postal articles from one place to another and it is a normal function of the Government statutorily reserved to itself. There is no justification to regard the carrying of mails from one place to another as the performance of any service undertaken by thewas further averred on behalf of the appellant that it was not justifiable to regard him as having any interest in a contract for the performance of any service undertaken by the appropriate Government within the mischief of Section 7(d) of the Act; and that he had been only, carrying out the obligations imposed upon him by Rule 160-B of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also contended that under Article 103 of the Constitution of India the question as to the disqualification of a member has to be decided by the President whose decision shall be final.4. On those pleadings the following issues were framed by the ElectionIs the nomination of respondent 1 invalid because of the prohibition contained in Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or for any of the reasons set forth in paras. 9 to 11 of the petition?2. Has this Tribunal no jurisdiction to decide the question as regards the disqualification of the returned candidate, because of Article 103 of the Constitution ofis not necessary to refer to the additional issue bearing on the question of limitation arising from an interlocutory application for impleading those candidates (respondents 4 to 10) whose nomination had been accepted but who had withdrawn from the contest. Both these issues were decided against the appellant. The Tribunal on a very elaborate discussion of the points raised before it, held that the postal service including the transport of mails is a service undertaken by the Central Government within the meaning of Section 7(d); that at the date of the nomination the appellant was a contractor under the Central Government; that the agreement between the Government and the appellant involved mutual obligations which could not be referable to a bare statutory duty on the part of the appellant but that it was the result of mutual assent based upon a free offer and acceptance; and that the agreement was supported by valid consideration. The Tribunal also held that Article 103 of the Constitution was not a bar to its jurisdiction to decide the controversy. Accordingly it allowed the election petition and held the appellants election to be void in terms of Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act, with costs to the respondent. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
7. In our opinion, there is no substance in any one of these contentions. It is true that the appellant entered into the contract aforesaid with the Central Government for the transport of postal articles and mail bags on the 16th November, 1949. From before that date he had been carrying on the business of plying buses on the route allotted to him by the Regional Transport Authority. But he entered into the contract with his eyes open and knowing full well his rights and liabilities under the same.No one is compelied to carry on the business of stage carriage service or for the matter of that, of transporting postal articles and mail bags. In terms of the permit, it is open to the Government to call upon a permit holder to undertake the additional burden of carrying postal articles and mail bags which carries with it the additional remuneration to be fixed by the Transport Authority after consultation with the postal authorities and the carrier. It is not every stage carriage permit holder who is called upon to do so.At the time the appellant entered into the contract with the Government in the postal department he may not have had any idea of standing for election to the House of the People when in future the general elections came to be held. If he wished to steer clear of the difficulty created by S. 7 of the Act, he could have given due notice to Government under Cl. 18 of the contract referred to above. On the expiry of the term of the notice he would have been free to stand for election to a State or Central Legislature. Section 7 of the Act is clearly intended to avoid a conflict between public duty and privateis true that the permit does contain a condition that the permit-holder may be called upon to undertake transport of mail bags and postal articles but that is only a notice to intending applicants for a stage carriage permit that the grantee of such a permit may have to render that additional service for an additional remuneration if called upon to do so by the authorities of the Postal Department. If any one was not prepared to undertake that additional responsibility, he was free not to make an application for such a permit; but that does not mean that the agreement actually entered into between the Postal Department and the permit holder is not an independent contract governed by its own special terms.It was further argued that the appellant had no hand in the fixing of the remuneration to be paid by the Postal Department for carrying its mails, etc. But it is clear, by a reference to the terms of the rule quoted above that the amount of the remuneration had to be fixed by the department after consultation with the carrier. It was always open to the latter to demur to the terms proposed by the department and if he found that the department was not prepared to accept his norms he was not bound to enter into the agreement.The fact that he had agreed to carry postal articles and mail bags was possibly an additional qualification for him to obtain a renewal of his permit and thus gave him an advantage over his competitors. Hence instead of being an additional burden or a handicap to him, it was an additional advantage to him in the matter of getting a renewal of his permit in preference to others. The agreement was therefore based on mutual promises, by the appellant to carry the mail bags, etc., and by the Postal Department to pay him suitable remuneration for the services thus rendered.11. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the Central Government could not be said to have undertaken any service within the meaning of S. 7(d) of the Act when it made arrangements for the carriage of mail bags and postal articles through the appellant. It has not been and cannot be contended that the Government is bound in the discharge of its duties as a sovereign State to make provision for postal mail service. The provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, VI of 1898, are only enabling in the sense that they authorise the State agency to have the exclusive privilege of conveying letters, etc. for the convenience of the public and for the benefit of the Government, without making it obligatory upon it to provide every individual and every place with thosemay be that those facilities are being extended from time to time and are being brought nearer to every home but that is only evidence of the fact that the State as a welfare state is anxious to provide for the conveniences of the public in the matter of communications and correspondence. That is to say the Government in the Postal Department has only undertaken a service to be rendered to the community and that such a service is not an essential function of a sovereigncannot be gainsaid that the Government in the Postal Department is rendering a very useful service and that the appellant has by his contract with the Government undertaken to render that kind of service on a specified route. The present case is a straightforward illustration of the kind of contract contemplated by S. 7(d) of the Act.At all material times the appellant has been directly concerned, for his own benefit in the contract of carrying mail bags and postal articles entered into by him with the Government in the Postal Department.