http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BHAGWAN DASS SEHGAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.  ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1974

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH ALAGIRISWAMI, A.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2355            1975 SCR  (2) 580

ACT: Constitution  of  India 1950, Article 14 and  191-Office  of Chairman  of Improvement Trust, if office of  profit-Removal of disqualification-If amounts to discrimination.

HEADNOTE: In  the  contest  for election to  the  Haryana  Legislative Assembly one of the respondents, who was the Chairman of the Ambala  Improvement  Trust..  was  declared  elected.    The appellant challenged the election on the grounds that :  (i) the  respondent’s  nomination was improperly  and  illegally accepted  because he was holding an office of  profit  under the  State Government, and (ii) S. 2(i) of the Punjab  State Legislature  (Prevention  and Disqualification)  Act,  1952, introduced  by the Haryana Amending Act 25 of 1969,  enacted by  the  Haryana  State Legislature under Art.  191  of  the Constitution  which  purported  to take the  office  of  the Chairman  of an Improvement Trust out of the purview  of  an office of profit, was invalid as it offended Art. 14 of  the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD:(1) The office of the Chairman of an Improvement  Trust constituted  under  the Punjab Town Improvement  Act  is  an office  of profit, but s. 2(i) provided that such  a  person does not incur the disqualification for being chosen as  and for  being  a  member  of  the  Haryana  State   Legislative Assembly. [581H-582B] (2)(a)  Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution gives  a  wide power to the State Legislature to declare by law what office or  offices  of profit held under the government  shall  not disqualify the holder thereof from being chosen or for being a  member of the state Legislature.  Classification is  thus left primarily to legislative discretion and when this power is exercised reasonably in a manner which does not drain out the  article  of  its  real  content  the  court  will   not interfere. [582H-583B] (b)There is no discrimination between the chairman of  the trust  and  the members of the trust.  In the  case  of  the members  of the trust the disqualification on the ground  of their  holding the office of profit had been removed  by  s. 2(e) of the 1952-Act. (c)Further,  the  status and  responsibilities  and  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

conditions  of the office of the Chairman of an  Improvement Trust differ from those of the members of the trust or other statutory bodies, and therefore, the mere fact that for  the purpose  of removing the disqualification the Chairmen  have been  put  in cl. (i) as a class se rate from  that  of  the members  of the Trust and other statutory bodies in cl.  (e) of  s. 2 does not offend the guarantee of  equal  treatment. [582G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1188  of 1973. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated  the 11th  October,  1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High  Court  in C.W. No. 2490 of 1970 and Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1973. From  the Judgment & Order dated the 30th October,  1972  of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 19 of 1972. D.V.  Patel,  S.  S.  Khanduja and S.  K.  Jain  for  the appellant (In both the appeals) 581 V.M.   Tarkunde,  V. C. Mahajan and R.  N.  Sachthey  for respondent No. 1 (In CA No. 1188/73. Uma Datta for respondents Nos. 2 (In CA.  No. 1188/73.)  and respondent No. 1 (In C.A. No. 1 of 1973). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA   J.-The   common   question   that   arises    for determination  in  these appeals is Whether  Clause  (i)  in Section  2  of the Punjab State Legislature  (Prevention  of Disqualification)  _Act 7 of 1952 ,(hereinafter referred  to as the Disqualification ’Act) inserted by Haryana  Amendment Act  25 of 1969 suffers from the vice of discrimination  and as  such,  is an invalid piece of legislation ?  Both  these appeals will therefore be disposed of by this judgment. The   appellant  and  respondents,  as   rival   candidates, contested the election to Haryana Legislative Assembly  from Ambala  Cantonment  Constituency in March  1972.   Hans  Raj Suri,  Respondent  was  declared  elected.   The  appellant, Bhagwan Dass Sehgal challenged this Respondent’s election on the  ground that his nomination papers had  been  improperly and illegally accepted.  It was alleged that on the material dates,  the  respondent  being  a  Chairman  of  the  Ambala Improvement Trust was holding an office of profit under  the Government of the State, and as such, was disqualified  from contesting  the election.  It was further pleaded  that  cl. (i)  of s.2 of the Disqualification Act 1952 (added  by  the Haryana  Amendment Act 25 of 1969) which purported  to  take the  office of the Chairman of an Improvement Trust  out  of the  purview  of  an ’office of profit’ was  invalid  as  it offended Article 14 of the Constitution. The  validity  of the aforesaid c (i)  was  also  challenged separately, under Article 226 of the Constitution in a  writ petition on the same grounds. The learned single-Judge before whom the writ petition first came up for hearing, got it referred to a Division Bench  of the  High  Court,  which dismissed the  writ  petition.   In consequence,  the  election petition, also,  was  dismissed. Hence these appeals. A few facts may now be set out: It is not disputed that at the date of filing the nomination papers  and  also  on  the  date’  of’their  scrutiny,   the respondent  was Chairman of the Ambala,  Improvement  Trust. He was appointed by the State Government under s. 4 and 5 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

the  Improvement Act by a notification dated May  21,  1970. As  Chairman he was receiving a salary of Rs.  1,000/-  P.M. plus  Dearness  and Conveyance Allowances.  It is  also  not disputed  that the power of appointment and removal  of  the Chairman of the Trust vests in the State Government and  his remuneration is paid out of the public revenues.  In  short, the  office  of the Chairman has all the  attributes  of  an "office  of  profit’.  But for the impugned  provision,  the respondent would have been disqualified from contesting  the election. 582 By  virtue  of. the powers conferred by Article 191  of  the Constitution,  the Legislature of Haryana State enacted  the Amendment  Act 25 of 1969, whereby it inserted the  impugned cl.  (i) in the original s. 2 of the  Disqualification  Act. The  effect of this amendment is that a person  holding  the office  of the Chairman of an Improvement Trust  constituted under  the Punjab Town Improvement Act or the office of  the Chairman   of   the  State  Agricultural   Marketing   Board constituted  under  s.3 of the Punjab  Agricultural  Produce Markets  Act, 1961, does not incur the disqualification  for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Haryana State Legislative Assembly. Mr. D. V. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant  contends that the impugned provision is discriminatory inasmuch as it enables the Chairman of the Trust to contest an election  to the State Assembly by removing his disqualification but does not  accord the same treatment to the members of  the  Trust appointed  under s. 4(i) (c) of the Improvement Act.  It  is further urged that the impugned provision has created an un- reasonable   classification  between  the  members  of   the statutory bodies falling under clause (e), and a Chairman of the  Improvement Trust falling under clause (i) of s.  2  of the Disqualification Act. To us, these contentions appear to be devoid of merit. In the case of members of the Trust appointed under S.  4(i) (c)  of  the Improvement Act, the  disqualification  on  the ground  of their holding the office of profit,  had  already been  removed by clause (e) of S. 2 of the  Disqualification Act, 1952, which runs thus :               "A member of any statutory body or  authority,               or  a  member of an Committee or  other  body,               appointed   or  constituted  by   the   Punjab               Government,  and  who is not in receipt  of  a               salary  but  who is paid only  travelling  and               daily allowance during the performance of  his               duties." It  is therefore not correct to say that the members of  the Trust  have  been  discriminated against in  the  matter  of removing the disqualification. It   is   noteworthy   that   the   status,   administrative responsibilities  and  other conditions which  go  with  the office of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust are not  the same as those of the members of the Trust or other statutory bodies.   The mere fact therefore, that for the  purpose  of removing the disqualification, the Chairmen of the  Improve- ment Trusts have been put in clause (ii) as a class separate from  that of the members of the Trust and  other  statutory bodies in clause (e) of s.2 does not offend the guarantee of equal treatment enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It  must  be  remembered  that Article  191(1)  (a)  of  the Constitution gives a wide power to the State Legislature  to declare by law what ,office or offices of profit held  under the Government shall not disqualify the holder thereof  from being chosen or for being a member of the State Legislature.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Classification of such offices for the purpose 583 of   removing  the  disqualification  has  thus  been   left primarily  to  legislative discretion.  It follows  that  so long  as  this exemptive power is exercised  reasonably  and with due restraint and in a manner which does not drain  out Article  191 ( 1 ) (a) of its real content or disregard  any constitutional  guarantee  or mandate, the  Court  will  not interfere.   Nothing  of  this kind has  been  done  by  the impugned  provisions which would justify the  invocation  of the  extraordinary powers of the Court under Article 226  of the Constitution. No other point has been argued before us. In the result the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with cost shearing fee limited to one set. Appeals dismmissed. V.P.S. 584