Skip to content


Janardan Bhawaniji Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Amravati and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 502 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Bom238; (1957)59BOMLR267
ActsCentral Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1947 - Sections 14; Central Provinces and Berar Local Self Government Act, 1948; Central Provinces and Berar General Clauses Act, 1914 - Sections 2(29); Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 182; Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
AppellantJanardan Bhawaniji
RespondentDeputy Commissioner, Amravati and ors.
Appellant AdvocateN.L. Belekar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateW.K. Sheorey, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....called upon to attend--whether moharrir a servant or commission agent--janapada sabha whether a local authority--servant, who is a.;the petitioner was a cattle pound moharrir which was under the management of a janapada sabha. he was not paid a monthly salary but was remunerated by payment of commission. as a cattle pound moharrir he had to attend at stated hours and be present whenever called upon to attend. on the questions whether the petitioner was a servant and whether he was a servant of a local authority:-;that the petitioner was a servant and not a commission agent as his duties had all the attributes of service,;that as the janapada sabha had 'the control or management of a municipal or local fund', the janapada sabha was a local authority within the meaning of that..........or appointment as a panch, deputy sar fanch or sarpanch if such person--(b.1) is servant of any local authority;***** the points that have been raised in this petition are (a) whether he was a servant of the local authority. 3. the petitioner was a cattle pound mohar. rir of the cattle pound at virur which is under the management of the janapada sabba at chandur. he was not paid a monthly salary but was remunerated by payment of commission. this is the ground on which he claims that he cannot be deemed to be a servant of that local authority. 4. it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed under the resolution annexure 6, in terms of which he accepted service. the resolution or the finance standing committee states. '. . . . and similarly, the servants to be paid commission.....
Judgment:

Kotval, J.

1. This is a petition by Janardan son of Bhawanji Taralkar who had filed his nomination paper for election, as a member of the Gram Panchayat at Virul, taluq Chandur. The nomination paper was rejected by the Supervising Officer under Section 14 (b-l) of the C. P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946.

2. Section- 14 (b-l) of the Act runs as follows :

'14. A person shall be disqualified for election, nomination or appointment as a Panch, Deputy Sar Fanch or Sarpanch If such person--

(b.1) is servant of any local authority;*****

The points that have been raised in this petition are (a) whether he was a servant of the local authority.

3. The petitioner was a cattle pound mohar. rir of the cattle pound at Virur which is under the management of the Janapada Sabba at Chandur. He was not paid a monthly salary but was remunerated by payment of commission. This is the ground on which he claims that he cannot be deemed to be a servant of that local authority.

4. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed under the resolution annexure 6, in terms of which he accepted service. The resolution or the Finance Standing Committee states.

'. . . . And similarly, the servants to be paid commission instead of pay, at the rate of six per cent.''

5. The petitioner was therefore prima facie appointed as a servant of the Janapada Sabha. hE now contends that he was merely a commission agent. In our opinion, a person is said to be a servant where by agreement, express or Implied, he places himself under the control of another-- the master. A person is under the control of another if he is bound to obey the orders of that other not only as to the work which he shall execute but also as to the details of the work and the manner of its execution. As a cattle pound Moharrir. it was admitted the petitioner has to attend at stated hours and be present whenever called upon to attend. He is not, to put it broadly, the master of himself in the discharge of his duties. We are of opinion that his duties have all the attributes of service and that he Is not a com-mission agent, in the circumstances.

6. It was then contended that the Janapada Sabha is not a local authority, and reference was made to the definition of local authority, in the C. P. and Berar Local Government Art, 1948. In the C. P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946, there is no definition of local authority, and we are primarily governed in the present case by that provision of law in interpreting the words 'local authority'. We cannot import into the Panchayats Act the specialised definition of 'local autho-ritv' in other law which was made for the purposes of that law.

7. In our opinion, the words 'local autho-i rity' would fall to be interpreted by the application of Section 2, Sub-section. (29), of the C. P. and Berar General Clauses Act, 1914, where 'local authority'' is defined as follows :

' 'Local authority' shall mean a municipal committee, district council or other authority legally entitled to, or eritrusetd by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund.'

In that definition a Janapada Sabha would be included because the Janapada Sabha has 'the control or management of a municipal or local fund.' The petitioner would therefore be a servant af such a 'local authority.'

8. For these reasons, we are of opinion thatthe orders impugned were correct. The petitionis dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50.

9. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //