# BHAGWAN DASS SEHGAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 580
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-11-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 1973
- **Bench:** Alagiriswami, R. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhagwan-dass-sehgal-v-state-of-haryana-and-ors-etc-etc-6185
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cons1ituti11n of India, 1950, Article 14 and 191-0ffice of Chairman of
Improvement Trust, if office of profit-Removal of disqualification-If amounts
to discrimination.
Jn 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 apJ,lllllE,nt 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(1) 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 thi!I Court,
HELD : (1 ) The office of the Chairman of an Improvement Trust constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement AcU 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 ot 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 woot office or offices of profit held under
the government sha!J 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. Jn the case of the members of the trust the disqualification on the ground of their holding the office qf profit had been removed
by s. 2 ( e) of the 1952-Act.
(c) Further, the status and 11:sponsibilities and other 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 separate 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]
CIV1L APPELLATE JuJRrsorcnoN : 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 cif 1970 and Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1973.
Frnm the Judgment & Oi:der dated the 30th October, 1972 of the
Punjnb Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 19 of 1972.
D. V. Patel, S. S. Khanduja and S. K. Jai11 for the appellant (In
both the appeals)
A
B
c
I>
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B. D. SEHGAL v. HARYANA (Sarkaria, /.)
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).

## Text

580
BHAGWAN DASS SEHGAL
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
November 5, 1974
[A, ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
Cons1ituti11n of India, 1950, Article 14 and 191-0ffice of Chairman of
Improvement Trust, if office of profit-Removal of disqualification-If amounts
to discrimination.
Jn 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 apJ,lllllE,nt 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(1) 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 thi!I Court,
HELD : (1 ) The office of the Chairman of an Improvement Trust constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement AcU 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 ot 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 woot office or offices of profit held under
the government sha!J 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. Jn the case of the members of the trust the disqualification on the ground of their holding the office qf profit had been removed
by s. 2 ( e) of the 1952-Act.
(c) Further, the status and 11:sponsibilities and other 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 separate 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]
CIV1L APPELLATE JuJRrsorcnoN : 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 cif 1970 and Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1973.
Frnm the Judgment & Oi:der dated the 30th October, 1972 of the
Punjnb Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 19 of 1972.
D. V. Patel, S. S. Khanduja and S. K. Jai11 for the appellant (In
both the appeals)
A
B
c
I>
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B. D. SEHGAL v. HARYANA (Sarkaria, /.)
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
SAWRIA 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 Assembl1y 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 cl. (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 dismised. 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 ss. 4 and 5 of 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 Chair·
man 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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
By virtue of the powers conferred by Article 191 of th~ Constitution,
A
the Legislature of Haryana State enacted the Amendment Act 25 of
1969, whereby it inserted the impugned cl. (D in thll 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 constitμted under s.3 of
the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, does not incur the
B
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 disqualificatio.n but does not accord the same treatment to the
C
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 unreasonable 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.
D
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 any Committee or other body, appointed or constitu!ed 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 tq say that the members of the Trust
have been discriminated against in the matter of removing the disqualification.
·
It is noteworthy that thf~ 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 Improvement 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. Qassification of such offices for the purpose
E
F
G
H
A
B
B. D •. SEHGAL v. HARYANA (Sarkaria, J.)
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 appeal~ fail and are hereby dismissed with costshearing fee limited to one set.
Appeals dismissed.
V.P.S.