# September 17. Appeal dismissed. MANGOO SINGH v. THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, BAREILL Y AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 418 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1956-02-03 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1957 - **Bench:** Bhagwati, S.K. Das, Gajendragadkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/september-17-appeal-dismissed-mangoo-singh-v-the-election-tribunal-bareill-y-1471 - **Pages:** 11 ## Headnote Election dispute-Municipal election-Disqualification for membership-Arrears of tax-Payment after nomination but before po/1-"For being chosen as", "D8fnand", meaning of-U. P. Municipalities ·Act, 1916 (U. P. ll of 1916), ss. 13-D, cl. (g), 166, 168U. P. Municipalities (Condcuct of Election of Members) Order, 1953, para. 22(2). The appellant was elected to the Municipal Board under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. He was in arrears in the payment of Municipal tax in excess of one year's demand, to which s. 166 of the Act applied, at the time of the filing of nominations, but made the payment before the date of the poll. Under section 130, cl. (g) of the Act "a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of a board if he is in arrears in the payment of Municipal tax or other dues in excess of one year's demand to which s. 166 applies, provided that the disqualification shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid." On an election ·petition filed by a defeated candidate, the election was set aside by the Election Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to s. 13-D, cl. (g) of the Act. It was contended for the appellant that the relevant date for the operation of the disqualification was the date of the poll and that in any case, he did not come within the mischief of the disqualification clause in that section, as a bill for payment of the tax was not presented to him, nor a notice of demand served on him under s. 168. . Held : (1) that if a person is disqualified on the date of nomination, he cannot be chosen as a candidate within the meaning of s. 13-D of the U.P. Municipalities Act. 1916, because the disqualification attaches to him on that date and the process of choosing consist of a series of steps starting with nomination and ending with the announcement of the election, The wiping off of the S.C.R. SUPEREME COURT REPORTS 419 disqualification has no retrospective effect, and the disqualifica1957 tion which subsisted on the date of the nomination cannot cease to Mangoo Singh subsist on that day by reason .of a. subsequent .payment of the v. arrears of Municipal tax. • Th• Ekction • · · · Tribunal, Bareilly ChatturbhuJ Vltha/das Jasam v. Moreshwar Parashram and and Others Others, (1954) S.C.R. 817, N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakka/ Constitutency and Others, (1952) S.C.R: 218 and Harford v. Linskey, (1899) I Q. B. 852, relied on. Ahmed Hossain v. Aswini Kumar, A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 542, approved. (2) that the expression "to which s. 166 applies" in s. 13-D, d. (g) of the Act merely describes the nature or type of dues mentioned in tha~ section and that the effect is that the demand referred to in s. 13-D cl. (g) must be of that nature or type. (3) that the word "demand" in s. 13-D, cl. (g) of the Act means "claim" or "due" and only refers to the amount of arrears or dues on which the disqualification depends and does not attract the operation of s. 168. ## Text 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1958 1957 of this case. The erroneous view that the learned Bakshish Singh Sessions Judge took of the dying declaration and of Tile srat:·of Punjab the oral evidence were compelling enough reasons for - the reversal of that judgment. Ka~r~ , We therefore dismiss this appeal. 1957 September 17. Appeal dismissed. MANGOO SINGH v. THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, BAREILL Y AND OTHERS (BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS and GAJENDRAGADKAR; JJ.) Election dispute-Municipal election-Disqualification for membership-Arrears of tax-Payment after nomination but before po/1-"For being chosen as", "D8fnand", meaning of-U. P. Municipalities ·Act, 1916 (U. P. ll of 1916), ss. 13-D, cl. (g), 166, 168U. P. Municipalities (Condcuct of Election of Members) Order, 1953, para. 22(2). The appellant was elected to the Municipal Board under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. He was in arrears in the payment of Municipal tax in excess of one year's demand, to which s. 166 of the Act applied, at the time of the filing of nominations, but made the payment before the date of the poll. Under section 130, cl. (g) of the Act "a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of a board if he is in arrears in the payment of Municipal tax or other dues in excess of one year's demand to which s. 166 applies, provided that the disqualification shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid." On an election ·petition filed by a defeated candidate, the election was set aside by the Election Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to s. 13-D, cl. (g) of the Act. It was contended for the appellant that the relevant date for the operation of the disqualification was the date of the poll and that in any case, he did not come within the mischief of the disqualification clause in that section, as a bill for payment of the tax was not presented to him, nor a notice of demand served on him under s. 168. . Held : (1) that if a person is disqualified on the date of nomination, he cannot be chosen as a candidate within the meaning of s. 13-D of the U.P. Municipalities Act. 1916, because the disqualification attaches to him on that date and the process of choosing consist of a series of steps starting with nomination and ending with the announcement of the election, The wiping off of the S.C.R. SUPEREME COURT REPORTS 419 disqualification has no retrospective effect, and the disqualifica1957 tion which subsisted on the date of the nomination cannot cease to Mangoo Singh subsist on that day by reason .of a. subsequent .payment of the v. arrears of Municipal tax. • Th• Ekction • · · · Tribunal, Bareilly ChatturbhuJ Vltha/das Jasam v. Moreshwar Parashram and and Others Others, (1954) S.C.R. 817, N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakka/ Constitutency and Others, (1952) S.C.R: 218 and Harford v. Linskey, (1899) I Q. B. 852, relied on. Ahmed Hossain v. Aswini Kumar, A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 542, approved. (2) that the expression "to which s. 166 applies" in s. 13-D, d. (g) of the Act merely describes the nature or type of dues mentioned in tha~ section and that the effect is that the demand referred to in s. 13-D cl. (g) must be of that nature or type. (3) that the word "demand" in s. 13-D, cl. (g) of the Act means "claim" or "due" and only refers to the amount of arrears or dues on which the disqualification depends and does not attract the operation of s. 168. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 30th August, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court in SpeCial Appeal No.8 of f955 arising out of the Judgment and order dated the lOth December, 1954, of the ·Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1245 of 1954. R.S. Narula,, for the appellant. B.B. Tawa~ley and K. P. Gupta, for the respondent. 1957. September 17. The following Judgmc-nt of the court was delivered by · S.K. DAs, J.-This appeal has been preferred to .this s. K. Das J. Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad on February 3, 1956, to the effect that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The question that falls for 4ecision is the true scope, meaning and effect of cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. II of 1916), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The relevant facts, which are not now in dispute, are these. There was a general election to the Municipal 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958) 1957 Board of Bareilly in October, 1953. The appellant,. Mangoo Singh Mangoo Singh, and respondent No.3, Jmdad Husain,. Thl! ;;ectlon along with. several others, were candidates at the said Tribunal, Bareilly election from Ward No. 15. The date fixed for filing and Others nominations was October 5, 1953, and the date for s. K. Das J. scrutiny of the nominations filed was October 7, 1953. The appe11ant and respondent No. 3 both filed their nominations on the due date, and at the time of scrutiny Imdad Husian raised an objection to the nomination of the appellant on ·the ground that the latter was disqualifi~d under cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the Act for being chosen as a member of the said Municipal Board because he was in arrears in the payment of municipal tax in excess of one year's demand. This objection was dismissed, and the nomination of the appellant was accepted by the Assistant Returning Officer. The poll took place on October 26, 1953 and the counting of votes was done on October 29, 1953. Four persons were to be elected from the said Ward, and the appellant was the third in the list by reason of the number of votes which he had obtained. lmdad Husain was fifth in the list. Accordingly, the appellant was declared as one of the returned candidates, and lmdadl Husian was at the top of the unsuccessful candidates .. Imdad Husain then filed an election ·petition to set aside the election of the present appellant on various. grounds. The only grounds with which we are now concerned is the disqualification under cl. (g) of s.l3-D of the Act. This election petition was heard by the Election Tribunal and by its judgment dated October 20, 1954, the Election Tribunal held that the appellant was in arrears in the payment of municipal tax in excess of one year's demand to which s. 166 of the Act applied and, therefore, came under the disqualification in cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the Act. It further held that the payment of a sum of Rs. 115-3-0 on October 10, 1953, five days after the date fixed for the filing of nominations, did not wipe off that disqualification, and the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to s. 13-D of the Act. It may be here stated that the Election Tribunal also held that no bill for payment of the tax was presented to the appellant S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 421 as required by s. 166, nor was any demand notice t9S7 -served on him as required by s. 168 of the Act. On Mangoo Singh the. 3:bove findi!Jgs, the Trib?nal aHowed the election The Eiection petition, set aside the electron of the appellant and Tribunal, Bareilly declared a casual vacancy under cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of and Others s. 25 of the Act, which vacancy was subsequent]) s. K. Das :1. , filled up by the election of the third respondent on April 5, 1955. The next general election in the Municipality is due in October, 1957. Against the decision of the Election Tribunal, the appellant moved the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The main point urged by the appellant was that the Election Tribunal was in error in its interpretation of cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the Act. Chaturvedi J. who dealt with the application of the appellant, agree with the view of the law as expressed .by the Election Tribunal and dismissed the application. The appellant then preferred an appeal to a Division Bench of the said High Court. This appeal was aJso dismissed by Agarwala and Sahai JJ. by their judgment dated August 30, 1955. The appellant then moved and obtained a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution from the said High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has not contested any of the findings of fact arrived at by the Election Tribunal and has confined his submissions to the question of the true construction of cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the Act. Therefore, it is nece~sary to read that section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose: "13-D. Disqualifications for membership.- A person, notwithstanding that he is otherwise qualified, shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a · member of a board if he- ( a) ..... .. . .. .. . .. .... . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... ... . (cb)) .... . .... .. ...... . . ..... . ........... . .... . ( .... ... .. .. ... ... .......... .............. . (d) ..................... . ... . ..... · . . ... . ... . . (e) ..... . ............. . .. . . . .... ... . ........ . (f) . ........•......... . ... . .. .... . . . ......... 1957 Mangoo Singh v. The Election Tribunal, Bareilly and Others S. K. Das J. 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958) (g) is in arrears in the payment of municipal tax or other dues in excess of one year's demand to which section 166 applies: Provided further that in the case of (g) the disqualification shaH cease as soon as the arrears are paid." The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant relates to and arises out of the expression "for being chosen as" occurring in the section. The argument is this. It is submitted that a person is "chosen as a member of a board" when the poll takes place and a majority of voters vote for him as their chosen candidate; therefore, the relevant date for the operation of the disqualification is the date of the poll, and inasmuch as on October 10, 1953, which was several days before the date of the poll, the appellant was n() longer in arrears of municipal tax in excess of one year's demand by reason of the payment made on that date, the disqualification did not attach to him on the d~e of the poll. We are unable to accept this argument. It is worthy of note that an identical expression ~'shall be disqualified for being chosen as" occurs in Art. 102 of the Constitution and s. 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This expression occurring in s. 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was~considered by this Court in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Para3hram and Others(~). In that case the question was when the disqualification mentioned in cl. (d) of s. 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, arose and it was held that the date for putting in the nominations. was one of the crucial dates. On this point, the foltow- ·ing observations made in that case are apposite: "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." (•) [1954] S.C.R. 817, 821. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 423 It wasApointed out in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returnt957 ing Ojftcer, Namakka/ Constituency and Others(!) that Mangoo Sing/1 'election' is a continuous process consisting of several . v. d b · f h' h · · The Election stages an em racmg many steps o w 1c nommat10n Tribunal &reilly is one; nomination is the foundation of a candidate's and Others right to go to the polls and must be treated as an S. K. Das J. integral part of the election. If a person is disqualified on the date of nomination, he cannot be chosen as a candidate because the -disqualification mentioned in s. 13-D attaches to him on that .date. This is also clear from para. 22(2) of the U .P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1953, That sub-para. states- "22(2)-The Returning Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections, which may be made to any nomination, and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such suinmary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,. refuse any nomination on any ofth~ following grounds: (a) that the candidate is not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act; or (b) that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under the Act; or (c) that there has been any failure to comply with any of the provisions of paras. 16 and 17; or (d) that the signature of the· candidate. or any· proposer or seconder is not genuine or has been ·obtained by fraud." If the disqualification of cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the Act iS. to come into operation only on the day of the poll, then it is quite unnecessary for the Returning Officer to consider that disqualification at the time of scrutiny; and indeed it will be improper for him to refuse nomination on the ground of such disqualification. Clause (b) of para. 22(2) uses the same expres-· sion "disqualified for being chosen"-showing clearly enough that the starting point of the act of choosing is not on the date of the poll only. The process of choosing commences on the date of filing nominations. (t) [1952] S.C.R. 218. 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] !957 We now tum to the second proviso to s. 13-D. The Mangoo Si~rgll submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that, orr Evl. 1. as Stated in the proviso, the disqualification is transient J rl~ ~C /On • Tribrmnt, Bareilly and ceases to operate as soon as the arears are patd ; arzd Others on October 10, _1953, the appellant was no longer s. K. Das J. disqualified and, therefore, he could be chosen on the date of the poll, that is, on October 26, 1953. The argument is that in the case of such a transient disqualification, the second proviso must be so read as to mean that a disqualification subsisting on the day of nomination can be wiped off completely by subsequent payment of arrears of tax; otherwise a disqualification at the time of nomination will disentitle a person to stand for election; even though it ceases to operate before the day of the poll. This argument also we cannot accept as correct; it is really the first argument in a different form. The wiping off of the disqualification under the second proviso has no retrospective effect, and the disqualification which subsisted on the day of filing nominations did not cease to subsist on that day by reason of a subsequent payment of the arrears of municipal tax. On this point we accept as correct the view expressed in Ahmed Hossain v. Aswini Kumar (1), where a similar question under the Bengal Municipal Act (Ben. XV of 1932), fell for consideration. The question was if a person disqualified on the date of nomination could shake off his pre-existing disqualification by acquiring a new right between the date of nomination and thedate of scrutiny. What happened in that case was this: on the material date, that is, the last date for submission of nominations, a person was in arrears for more than three months in payment ·of the tax which he was liable to pay, and he came within the mischief of cl. (g) of amended s. 22(1) of the Bengal Municipal Act. The contention was that the name of the Press of which the candidate was the proprietor and not his name was recorded in the books of the Municipality as the assessee and that the name of the candidate was in the electoral roll by reason of his educational qualifications, This contention was repelled and it was (1) A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 542. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 425 observed that if a person was disqualified on the date 1957 of the nomination, he could not shake off his preMangoo s;,11h existing disqualification by acquiring a new right