# •' - M. RAMAPPA v. S.ANGAPPA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1167
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958-02-26
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-ramappa-v-s-angappa-and-others-1463
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

. '
~
L
·-
'
t
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
ll67
Court which tries him cquld 'award for any one of
x95B
such off(lnces.'. The maximum sentence which could
Puranmall
have been μnpqsed upon ~the appellant for a1;1y one of
Agarwal/a
the offences of.which he had been convicted was one
v.
year's•iniprisonmenp. ln 'other words, even if separate The State of Orissa
-sentences were passed under.a .. 9, sub-ss. (a) an\l (b),
-
the sum total of these sentences should not exceed one
1'" 0"' J.
year's imprisonment. In the present 0;:1se, t.he sentence
imposed upon.the appellant has been in all 6 months,
3 months' imprisonment under each c0unt. It wol.lld
appear; therefore, that the sentence passed upon the
appellant did not
c6ntrav~ne the provisions of /l. 71
of thf) Indiaμ Penal Code. In our opinio'n, the appellant .was rightly.convicted under s. 9.(a) and (b) of the
Opium Act, and· there has Been no illegality in the
sentence' imposed upon him.·
It \Vas ~trsmgly urged on behalf of the appella;nt
that there might be a redhction .in the. sentence.
Instead of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed,
the- appellant may be sentenced to a substantial fine.
In our qpinion, offences against the Opium Act are
serious ones, and we cannot accede to the re'quest
ma.de. 4 sentence of 6 months' imprisonment cannot
be considered as unduly severe.
The ai;>pe,al is accordingly dismissed.
,1
I
•
I
•'
..
-
M. RAMAPPA
v.
S.ANGAPPA AND OTHERS
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.) '
..
lion Dispute-Disqualification for being chosen as me.,;ber
bf.
ate Assembly-Hereditary.village office-Whether office of prounder the Government-Mysore Villaf..e Offices Act, 1~08 (Mysore
4 of 199~), ss. q, 7, 8-Rep~esei:tatjon of (he People Act, 195~
(43 of 1951): s. 106(1)(c)-Constitufion of Jndia, Art. 191,
•
Tlie ~omination papers o{ three candisJates Jar election as
members of the State l\.Ssembly were rejected by the Returning
•
•
August ar.
•
z958
Rapiappa
v.
Sangapp~
J
1168
SUPREME COURT :REPORTS
[1959]
Officer on-thq ground that \he first two of them were P.atels aud
the third, ·a Shanbhog, of their villages and as such they
were hblders of offices of profit under the Government and
consequently
disqualified from membership of the State
Assembly under "Al't. 191 of
th~ Constitution of India. The
validity of the election was challenged by some of the 'electors
of the constituency by an election petition under s. lOO(r)(c) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951,.on the ~round that
the nomination papers of the three candidates were wrongly
rejected. It was contended for the petitioners that the candidates in ').Uestion were not holders of offices of profit under- the
Government. because (I) they were holding their offices by hereditary right and not 'Under the Governmen~, and (2) th.ere was
no direct payment of their dues by the Government. It was not
disputed that village offices are governed by the Mysore Village
Offices Act, 1908, and 'it was found that Pa tels and Shanbhogs
were holding their offices by reason of the appointment by the
Government, though in certain cases the statute gave the heir of
the last holder a right to be appointed if the s\at11tory requiremen.ts were fulfilled, that they worked μnder the control and
supervision of the Government and were removable by it, and
that their remuneration was paid by it out of its funds and
assets :
Held, that th_e holder of a village office though he may nave
a hereditary right, cloes not get the office till he is appointed by
the Government under whom the office is held_.
Accordingly,
Patels anJi Shanbhogs a.re hblder~ of offices of profit under ~he
Government and their nomination papers '>'(ere rightly rejected
by the Retm;ning Officer.
'
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Civil Appeal No.
251of1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February
26, 1958, of the Mysore High Court in Misc. Appeal
No. 142 of 1957.
-
R. Patnaik, for the appellant.
S. J(. Venkatranga Iyengar and N. Keshav

## Text

. '
~
L
·-
'
t
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
ll67
Court which tries him cquld 'award for any one of
x95B
such off(lnces.'. The maximum sentence which could
Puranmall
have been μnpqsed upon ~the appellant for a1;1y one of
Agarwal/a
the offences of.which he had been convicted was one
v.
year's•iniprisonmenp. ln 'other words, even if separate The State of Orissa
-sentences were passed under.a .. 9, sub-ss. (a) an\l (b),
-
the sum total of these sentences should not exceed one
1'" 0"' J.
year's imprisonment. In the present 0;:1se, t.he sentence
imposed upon.the appellant has been in all 6 months,
3 months' imprisonment under each c0unt. It wol.lld
appear; therefore, that the sentence passed upon the
appellant did not
c6ntrav~ne the provisions of /l. 71
of thf) Indiaμ Penal Code. In our opinio'n, the appellant .was rightly.convicted under s. 9.(a) and (b) of the
Opium Act, and· there has Been no illegality in the
sentence' imposed upon him.·
It \Vas ~trsmgly urged on behalf of the appella;nt
that there might be a redhction .in the. sentence.
Instead of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed,
the- appellant may be sentenced to a substantial fine.
In our qpinion, offences against the Opium Act are
serious ones, and we cannot accede to the re'quest
ma.de. 4 sentence of 6 months' imprisonment cannot
be considered as unduly severe.
The ai;>pe,al is accordingly dismissed.
,1
I
•
I
•'
..
-
M. RAMAPPA
v.
S.ANGAPPA AND OTHERS
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.) '
..
lion Dispute-Disqualification for being chosen as me.,;ber
bf.
ate Assembly-Hereditary.village office-Whether office of prounder the Government-Mysore Villaf..e Offices Act, 1~08 (Mysore
4 of 199~), ss. q, 7, 8-Rep~esei:tatjon of (he People Act, 195~
(43 of 1951): s. 106(1)(c)-Constitufion of Jndia, Art. 191,
•
Tlie ~omination papers o{ three candisJates Jar election as
members of the State l\.Ssembly were rejected by the Returning
•
•
August ar.
•
z958
Rapiappa
v.
Sangapp~
J
1168
SUPREME COURT :REPORTS
[1959]
Officer on-thq ground that \he first two of them were P.atels aud
the third, ·a Shanbhog, of their villages and as such they
were hblders of offices of profit under the Government and
consequently
disqualified from membership of the State
Assembly under "Al't. 191 of
th~ Constitution of India. The
validity of the election was challenged by some of the 'electors
of the constituency by an election petition under s. lOO(r)(c) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951,.on the ~round that
the nomination papers of the three candidates were wrongly
rejected. It was contended for the petitioners that the candidates in ').Uestion were not holders of offices of profit under- the
Government. because (I) they were holding their offices by hereditary right and not 'Under the Governmen~, and (2) th.ere was
no direct payment of their dues by the Government. It was not
disputed that village offices are governed by the Mysore Village
Offices Act, 1908, and 'it was found that Pa tels and Shanbhogs
were holding their offices by reason of the appointment by the
Government, though in certain cases the statute gave the heir of
the last holder a right to be appointed if the s\at11tory requiremen.ts were fulfilled, that they worked μnder the control and
supervision of the Government and were removable by it, and
that their remuneration was paid by it out of its funds and
assets :
Held, that th_e holder of a village office though he may nave
a hereditary right, cloes not get the office till he is appointed by
the Government under whom the office is held_.
Accordingly,
Patels anJi Shanbhogs a.re hblder~ of offices of profit under ~he
Government and their nomination papers '>'(ere rightly rejected
by the Retm;ning Officer.
'
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Civil Appeal No.
251of1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February
26, 1958, of the Mysore High Court in Misc. Appeal
No. 142 of 1957.
-
R. Patnaik, for the appellant.
S. J(. Venkatranga Iyengar and N. Keshava Iyengar,
for the respondents.
•
1958.
August 21.
The .Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
Sarkar J.
SARKAR J.-The question for decision in this ap
•
is w hethei: certain persons were holders· of offices
profit 3lnder the G(\'.vernment and were.
~~erefore
• disqualified under Art. 191 of the Const1tut10n, for
,,.
being chosen as'member.s, o:( a legislative assembly. It
•
'
•
I
S.C.R.
sul.EME C.OURT REPOOTS
UGQ
arises out of a b_,.,rtion presente<i :under the Representa,
tion of the People Act, 195],, for a declaration that .the
election of the appe1lant was void.
The election with which the case is concerned, was
held o.n March 8, 1957, for choosing members for the
Mysore State
I:egisla~ive Assembly. One
of the
constituencies for the purposes of election to that
Assembly was known as Harihar. The nomination
papers filed by three persons,• namely, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao for election from that
constituency were rejected by the Returning Officer on
the ground that the first two of them were -Patels
and the third a Shanbhog of ce1·tain villages in Mysore
and as such they were all holders of offices of profit
under the Mysore Government and consequently
disqualified from membership .of the Assembly l\nder
Art. 191. As a result of this rejection two candidates
were left to contest the election and the appellant, who
was one of them, was declared elected as he obtained
th11. larger number of votes at the poll. Six electors of
.the Harihar constituency then filed the election petition
for a declaration under s. lQO,(l)(c) of the Representatioq of the People. ,Act, 1951, 'that the ,election of the
appellan~was -Void on the ground that the nomination
papers of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao
had be~n improperly rejected. 'If the rejection was
improper the petition would have to· be allowed.
The appellant was the sole
respondent to that
petition. It was. alleged in,the petition that Pa tels
and ShaJ;)bhogs were hereditary village officers and
therefore were hot holders .of offices of profit under
the Got'ernment.
It was said that they were really
representatives of the village community, and only
acted as agents of that community or as liaisons
between it and the G,overnment, and th.at in any
event they were not holders of offices of profit
bee
e the amount of money receivable by them in
r
ect of their offices was very small .and out of all
roportion to the work done by tthem. The petitiop.
was dis.lllissed ·by the Election Tribunal by its order
.date.d September.JO, 1957.. It held that the conditions •
pf service pf Patels and Shanbhogs were regulated by
•
•
Ramappa
~
v.
Sangappa
Sarkar ].
•
Ramappa
v.
Sangappa
Sarkar ].
•
1170
SUPREME .COUR'J_' RF'.
[1959)
the Mysore Village Offities Act, 190S, and that the mere
fact that offices of Pa tels and Shanbhogs were heredita.ry was not by itself sufficient to establish that they
were not offices under the Government. It also held
that Hanuman~happa, Siddappa and Guru Rall were
in receipt of considerable -remuneration and were,
therefore, holding offices of profit. The six petitioners
then appealed to the High Court of Mysore.
The High
Court by its judgment, dated February. _2.~l,. 1958,
allowed the appeal 'and held that the offices of Pa tels
a;nd Shanbhogs were not offices under the Government.
The election of-the appellant was thereupon declared
void. It is from this judgment thatthe present appeal
to this Court has been taken with a certificate granted
under Art. 133(1)(0) of the Constitution. ,One of the
six petitioners being dead, the remaining five are the
respondents in this appeal.
There is no . dispute that Hanumanthappa and
Siddappa held the offices·of Patt;ls.and as remuneration for their services lands had been allotted to them
and ·provision for cash allowances made. Likewise it
is not disputed that Guru Rao was a Shanbbog. and
had cash remuneration iJrovided to him.for his services.
It is also clear and not challenged that Patels and
ShanbhogS' have specific duties to perform and are
.holders of offices.
The only point for determination in
this appeal is whether they are holders of offices under
the Mysore GovernmenV.
'
Tlie contention of the learned Advocate for the
respondents is th.at Patels and Shanbho~ are not
·holders of offices under the Government. He said that
their· offices were recognised by the old custoniary law
and devolved by hereditary succession. According to
'him under that law these ·offices were held under the
village community and the officers acted as agents of
that community to pay the revenue of the vlllage to
the authority entitled to it and formed the l' · ons
between that community and the authority. He c
tended that under 'the Mysore Land Revenue Code,
• ·1888~ the.• Goverl\ment -could
appoint Pa~ls and
Shanbhogs ~nly ~h<lre there were nq heredit:;i.ry Pa~ls
v,nd Shanbhogs. He said that as Hanumahthappa and
•
•
f
.~
•
•
•
•
,S.~R.
·l,V'll
Siddappa .were admittedly .hereditary Patels. and Guru
,&ao, a hereditary Shanbhog, th!iy could not have been
holding:offices under.,t.he Government. ·He ,contended
thaii·the Mysore Village Officeey Act was a consolidati.eg
Act and it did not alter the hered-itary right to the
offices'but 'maintaineq·the old· law.
According to him
}leing hereditary, these offices were .not held under the
Government,
Village Offices _(!,_re now gove'rned by the Mysore
Village ,9ffices Act, 1908. The election petition
proceeds.on this basis and both tlie Courts below have
so held al).d the contrary haf\ indeed not tbeen contended in this. Court. The Act itself mentions the offices
of Pa tels and Shanbhogs as "Village Offices" within
it and puts the matter beyond all doubt. The Act, no
doubt, recognise~ a hereditary .right to ;village offices
tq some extent and. a larger -hereditary right to the
offices is not clai'med"for. Hanrimamthappa,., Siddappa
or. Gurn Rao.
A consideration o{ the customary law
of .the Madras Land Reven\rn. Code is, therefore,
unftece!lsary·.• .
1
..
1.
' The question then is, what is the ('fleet of the pro.
visipns of the Mysore Village Offices Act dealing .with
tlie' hereditary ·right .to the offices? First, there· is
s,,6 under which .when two or more villages .or portions
thereof are grouped toge'ther.or amalgamat'ed to.form
a new village, or one villag<;i is diyided into 2 or more
yil!ages, the. old. ;village 'Offices
c~ase. to exist and ne:w
offices ·have to be .created,. In choosing perspns to till
such new offices the Gov.ernment ,has to .select the best
qualified -from among the last l;wlders of. .the ·office~
\V.)lich haNe1 ce1tsed, to exist qr_,the. members.of their
falllilies.
i[n,. these c;i.ses obviously. no full hereditary
right to. the ·office is recognised, for, the offices which
have ceased to ex;ist niay ,have 9eei;i· held. by m\)mbers
of differept ,familie,s.
All that .s. 6 says is that the
new appointment ·shall Pll made from atnongst these
f
i ies. So it.is possible nnder:this section to a.ppoint
·an office a person who is not the heir of the last
holder of tl:ie'. office abolished. The. important sectiop,
however,'for"the·purpose of .a hereditary right to, the •
•
Ramappa
v.
~an gap pa
Sarkar ].
•
•
01172
SUPREME COURT R
~TS
[1959]
office is s. 8 which provides 'for filling up a vacancy
·OQQUrring in the office of a Patel or a Shanl:/h~og.
R.amappa
S
h
h 11
v.
uh-section (1) states t at certain persons s a
·not
Sangapfaa
be eligible for the ·office. It is there provided that a
person who has not attained majority or does not
Sarkar '].
possess requisite physical or mehtal capability, 'or the
prescribed educational
qualification, ··or has been
convicted by ~ criminal court for an offence which,
in the opinion of the prescribed officer, disqualifies
him.for holding the .office, or has been. adjudged'by
~hat officer after an enquiry as prescribed, to be of
general ba:d ·charac'ter, shall not be eligible for appointment. Sub-section (2) provides that succession in the
case of a perma:nent vacancy shail be regulated by
tlie ordinary provisions of the personal law applicable
to'the last holder, provided tliat it shall devolve on a
',
single heir and that •where/ there are more persons
than one who would under tl{e ordinary provision![ of
that law be entitled to succeed to the last holder of· the
office, preference shall be given to the eldest member
of the eldest branch among those persons. Thi's
would seem to create a right in the heir of the deceased
holder of an office to. succeed to him. This right,
however,
i~ not. an· absolute right for he cannot be
aP.pofnted if he is not eligible ·under sub-s. (1) nor
where the ):irescribed officer "has declared under s. 7
{v) in dismissing any holder of office, that the dismissal would entail a forefeit.ure of the· right bf
succession of all the·undivided members of his family.
!J'his is all the hereditary right to. an office/that is
•
.•
prdvided by·the Act.
~ /
Let us, however, ·ignore the restrictions on the
hereditary right to the office mentioned in· the Act and
assume that the eldest heir in the eldest 'branch of
the last holder of it; -is entitled ·te succeed to the
office when he vacates it. The qu.estion is, tloes this
make the office one not under thi; Government ? The
learn~d Advocate for the respondent contended tha ·t
did and this contention has been accepted-by the Hig
Court. The learned Chief Justice in his. judgment
.
said " can the Government prevent him from succeed-
• ing to the permauent vacancy ? Such a person gets to
•
•
•
•
,.
•
S.C.R ..
SUI'E COURT ·REPORTS .
1173
tha~ post not b\)cause he is ap1Jointed by tjle Government but by his o:wn rights." "He. also supported ,his
view py referring to M angal Sain "'· State of Punjab (1)
where it had been held that the mere fact that the
Government - has under a statute a hand in the
appointment and dismissal of the Executive Officer
of a Mun,icipality, does rrot· make him its s,ervant.
·We thin!\. th\s view is unten:i.ble. It ovt?rlooks the
fact that the heir of the last holder does not get the
office till he is appointed to it by the (}overnment ..
The statute, no· doubt, gives him a tight to be
appointed by the Goverμment in certain qases.
None
the less, it is the appointment by the Government ,that
perfects his right to the officJ3 and makes him the
officer; .without f\UCh appo,iμtmel).t l;ie does not hold
th.e office.
The Govern,ment makes_ the :i,_ppoin~ment
to, the office though -it t may .be that it h.a:i under the /
statute no opt\on but _to appoint ,the heir ~p the office
if he has fulfilled the statutory requirements.
The.
office is, therefore, held by ·reason of the appointment
by' the Government and ·not simply because of a
hereditary right to it. The fact "that the Government
c~nnot refuse to _make the ap~ointment does not alter
the situation.
If this were not so, the result woul~ bl!. curious. An
office has to .. be h,eld under someone fo, it is' impossible
to conceive of an -office- ·held, under !10 one. The,
appointment ,being by t~e Gover11ment, the office to
which it is made must be h.eld under it, for there is no
one else under whom it can be held.
The learned
Adv;ocate• saip tha~ the office was. held under the
village .community. But such a thing 'is a,n impossibility for village pommunities have since a very long
tirμe, ceased t-0 have any corporate existence. The
c(l,se of_ Mangal Sain v. T~e.Sta.te of Punjab (1) does
not assist_ for there, the.re WIJ.S .the Municipality under
whic the offiqe could be heJd thqugh appoiqtrμent to
i
a~ madti by the Government.
The le11rned Advocat\j for the respo.ndent .contended
that there arE) certain other sections of the Act whiob,
support his coqtention. .Firs\;, ~e were referred to •
(t) A.I.lt 1952 Punj. ,58.
..
•
Ramappa
v.
Sangappa
Sarkar J.
..
•.
•
Ramap'p!J'
v.!.__,
Sangt:tpp~
Sarkar j.
•
•
1174
STJPREME COURT .R~TS
[i'959]
s:'lf which gives' ,a 'pe:i;so11 entitled to an office ,under
s. 8 of tlie Act a right fu 'sue before the ptes9tibed
authority' foi: it or for the re,covery of its elllolument&:
. We are una·ble to' see that tliis section advances the
iii~tter further. 1t 'only •shows that a person.has n1
right' to be appointe9-.
That; however, as we ·have
earlier sti.ltte'd, is not enougl'i'..
The right atone does
ndt make· him the officer.
He must actually be app~inted -to the office. anct upon~ such 'appointmeht 'he
comes to hold it under ·the Government. We \vei1e
also referr~d to s. 8, sub-s. (4) whicli provides th~t
when the heir of"the last holder of an office who would·
otherwise be entitled to .succeed to it ·is a minor,· the
p)e'spi-ibed officer sl_iall ·register him as' a successor' of
tlie last' holder and ·appoint some other qualified per-·
s'on to.discharge the' duties of the office during' Ms'
. ininol'ity. Tl1is prqvision is'equally unhelpful. The
minor is only registered ·as a successor ·and on at~ain··
ineilt of maj6'tity or within three· years thereafter if he
is qunJified m1der the Act, he can be appointed to ~he'
clffic'e.
In the meantime h~ is not· appointed to the'
office nor does he hold it. Here again it is .6i1ly on
appointment after' attaitrnfient of ma·jority that the
erstwhile minor heir cpmes to hold the offic~: We,
therefore., cjome to tb:e conclusion that though there
may ,be" a.•heredita:ry right to· hold an offi9e, it is not
held till a11 'appointment to it is''lllade by the-Government ahd. tha\; 'there is no OJ)e except the G6vernmenu
und!!r whom 'the office can be held.
1
I ·We liave's.o. far dealt with 'the prov'isioμs' 9.,f the Abt'
coricerning appointtnents. We 'will n~nv1turn to th6s~
dealing w'ith dismissal froin 6ffice ·artd bther furn'l'.s 'of
Pl\μishnient.
Section 7 of the Act gives the presc'.dbecr officer of the .elo".emm\).qt,' pmyer to suspe>f\d,, dismiss' or 'rei;nove any holder 'of' a village ,office ,on any'
of' t11e grounds mentioned i:h it:
g;here is no dthei'
powe't of dismissaV given' by' th~ Act. It· is sai
'iat:
this shows that the office is'ribt held 11\:ider the >Gove
.
men,t for jf it •\r~reiso, _the offiqer wduld be liable' to dii;:-
:drissal at1the' pleasure>1of the Gov~rno'f' under Art. 310
• of the' Constitb.tion.
This argu'.1Ueht' \'vas accepted by
the High Court bot it seems t<;> us to ·1ack irr substance .
•
• '
•
•
•
' '"
•
S.C.H.
SUPtME COURT REPORTS
1175
The [Lrgument assumes th[Lt bec11use of s. 7 of the Act,
the holder of a village office is not liable to be dismissed at the ple[Lsure of the Governor. We think it unnecessary in this case to decide whether this assumption is ,justified or not and will proceed on the basis
that it is the correct view of the position.
But does
it follow that bec[Luse a village officer cannot be dismissed a.t the pleasure of the Governor, he does not
hold office under the Government ?
It has been
recognised th:tt a statute may prevent [LU officer of the
Government from being dismissed at its pleasure. That
is what happened in Goi1,ld v. Stuart (') referred to by
the Judicial Committee in R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary
of State for India (2). In Gould v. Stuart (supra) it was
said, that "It is the law in New South Wales as well
as in this com1try that in a contract for service under
'the Crown, civil as well as military, there is, except in
certain cases where it is otherwise provided by law,
imported into the contract a condition that the Crown
has, the power to dismiss at its pleasure: Dunn v.
Reg; De Dohse v. Reg (3).
The question then to be
determined is, lfas the Civil Service Act, 1884, made
au. exception to this rule ? ", ~nd it w;i,s held th;i,t it
lrnd. In the result it wn.s held that the respondent
who had entered the service of the Government of
New South ·wales under and in accordan~e with the
provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1884, was not
liable to he dismissed at the pleasure of the Government bec'1use of these provisions.
\,Ye do not say
anything .as to whether t.he principle of Gould v.
Stnart (') will n.pply to our country in view of the
com1titut.io1ml provision contained in Art. 310.
Such
a, question has not been argued at the lmr n.nd does
not require to be decided in this c;i,se. If the principle of tlmt case does not n.pply, then the village
officer, if he is a, servant of the Government, is liable
to c · · 1is;al ;i,t its pleasure, in spite of s. 7 of the Act;
a,
if it docs, then the fact tlmt he is not li;i,ble to
rnh dismissal does uot prove that he doe;, not hold
office under the Government. It would thus appear
(r) (1896] A.C. 579.
(2) (1936) L.R. 64 I.A. 55.
'
(3) [1896]" Q.H u7, n. (7)•
Ramappa
v.
Sangappa
Sarkar J .'
•
•
•
Ramappa
v.
Sa11gappa
Sarkar J.
•
1176
SUPRE"E COURT REJRTS
[l!J.5!)]
that. the fact that 1111 officer is not. liahle t-0 dismissal at
the pleasure of the tlovernmeut docs not by itself
establish that he does not hold office under t.he (;o,·ernment.
\Ve uow come t:o the question of the remuncrat,ion
of a Yillage ofliccr.
The High Court in its judgment
r!!forred to the rnles under the Ad :1s to t.lw mode of
payment of the emol11111c•111.s a11d held th11t. there was
110 clireet payment of his dues hy the Government.
to a vill1ige officer. That:, acco1·ding to tht' II igh Court,
also showed that the offiC"er <lid not holcl his oflice
under the Government..
This view also is, in our
opinion, unfounded.
Government lands are allotted
by it to the oflicers by way of emoluments for services
to he rendered and the •!t1sh allowances :trc• also fixecl
hi' the Go\'ernment.
It is t.ruc that under the rnlc.~
cash allow,111ces are not paid directly by t.hc Government to the officers but. the lat.IA~!' ttre authorised to
deduct tlw amount.s thereof from the revenue collec:t:ecl
by them. This does not show that the cash rcmnnera.
tion is not paid by the Government. The revenue l:ollec:ted bdnngs to the GoYc·rnmcnt.
The Hulfs provide
t.hat where an officer deducts the caHh allmvnnco from
t.he revenue collected h.1~ him mu! dcpo8its the• habrice
in t.he Go\•e1·nrncnt Tre,1sury, his receipt for the amo1mt
clccluct.c<l shall be considered equivalent to the pa~._
ment into the Treas111'}' of an cqmd sum in cash : (see
l'lllc 75 Xlll of tlw Hules framed unckr the Act.).
The re.~ult, therefore, of this rnle is as if the cnti1°<'
n.mount oft.he revenue eollccte1l had been deposited
into the trea'11ry and part of it p:i.id back fl.1 the ofll.
cer on account of hiR cash remunemt.ion .. In any
event, it: Heem8 clear to us tlmt the cash allowance to
the officl'r conccrned is, in spite of tlw proce<lurn laicl
dmrn in respect of its pttymcnr., a payment by t.he
(Joyernment out of it8 mcJJwys .
Lastly, we find that the duties of the village officc>r<
are fixed by the GoYernment and these officers~k
under t.he direction, control rind supervision of t
Govcrnmeht.. This is conceded.
We then come to this that Patels and Shanbhogs
•are officers, ~1·ho.are appoint~d to their oftlocs by t.he
•
•
•
•
•
S.C.R.
SU1EME COURT REPORTS
1177
Government though it may bEi that the Government
has no option in certain cases but to appoint an heir
of the last holder; that they hold their office by
reason of such appointment only; that they work
under .the control and supervision of the Government;
that their remuneration is paid by the Government
out of Government funds and· assets; and thai, they
are removable by the Government, and that there is
no one else under whom their offices could be held.
All these clearly establish that Patels and Shanbhogs
hold offices of profit under the Government. In this
view of the matter it has to be held that the nomination papers of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Gum
Rao were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer
and the election petition is without substance.
.
The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment and order of the High Court are set aside,
and those of the Election Tribunal restored. The
election petition is dismissed.
The respondents will
pa_x the appellant's costs throughout.
Appeal allowed .
•
HANSKUMAH KISHANCHAND
v.
•
THE UNION OF INDIA
(and connected appeal)
(VENKATARAMA ArYAR,GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
Appeal to Su.preme Court-Maintainability-Decision of High
Court in appeal from an award-If and when a judgment, decree or
ord
est-Defence of India Act, r939 (No. XXXV of r939),
s r9(r)(u), r9(r)(j)-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of r908). ss.
09, IIO.
•
•
. rfhese t\VO appeals were preferred against the decision of the
Nagpur Hiih Court in _an.appeal under s. rg(r)(f) of the Defence •
of India Acf, r939, mod1fymg an award of tompensation made
•
v.
Sangappa
Sarkar J.
August 22.
•
•