Contracts with Escom/KPTCL amount to office of profit: HC

The Kalaburagi bench of the high court has said that holding contractors’ licence and discharging contracts with escom/KPTCL would amount to office of profit and would disqualify such licence holders under section 12(g) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act 1993.

The court said this while upholding the order of a civil court in Raichur which disqualified an electrical contractor as a member of Chandrabanda village panchayat.

The petitioner Manikyappa was elected as a member on December 30, 2020 and one Dastagir had challenged the election. It was contended that Manikyappa was holding an office of profit as he was a class-1 electrical contractor with Gescom/KPTCL at the time of filing nomination.

Section 12(g) of the 1993 Act indicates that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being member of the gram panchayat if he holds any office of profit under any local or other authority subject to the control of the central government, the state government or the government of any other state. The trial court had passed an order on April 21, 2023 declaring Manikyappa’s election as void.

Also Read | State, agencies must solve disputes on separate platform: K'taka HC

Manikyappa contended before the high court that he was having a contract with Gescom/KPTCL and not with the village panchayat and the same would not lead to his disqualification. It was further submitted that he only holds a licence while no work was carried out by him under the licence or contract as on the date of filing of the nomination or thereafter.

He also claimed that the licence was surrendered to the executive engineer on November 20, 2020, prior to the filing of the nomination and that section 12(g) of the 1993 Act only relates to actual holding of office.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj pointed out that the licence was surrendered to a wrong person with no authority to accept the same and hence on the date of nomination, the petitioner’s licence was subsisting. The court also noted that in Devaraja Urs case, the Karnataka high court had held that mere surrender of licence would not bring an end to that licence, until accepted by the competent
authority.

“In the present case, there being no dispute as regards the petitioner being a partner in a firm which is having a contract with the GESCOM/KPTCL, a meaningful reading of Section 12(g) of the Act of 1993 by taking reference of Section 9(a) of the R P Act would indicate that the petitioner is holding an office of profit. The term office of profit has not been defined,” the court said.