ORDER
S.K. Pande, J.
1. This revision under Section 26 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for convenience), is directed against the order dated 14-10-2000, passed by ADJ, Beohari in Election Case No. 1/2000, whereby the election of the petitioner Indrajeet Singh to the post of Councilor, Nagar Panchayat Jai Singh Nagar was set aside.
2. The petitioner Indrajeet Singh and respondent Jagdish Prasad were the contestants of the election of Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar, held in December, 1999. Petitioner Indrajeet Singh submitted nomination form from Ward No. 9. At the time of scrutiny, the respondent Jagdish Prasad raised an objection to the validity of the nomination of petitioner Indrajeet Singh. It was submitted that petitioner Indrajeet Singh has entered into a contract of supply of building materials to Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar and is in arrears of dues. Ignoring the objection aforesaid, petitioner’s nomination was accepted. Petitioner-Indrajeet Singh was declared elected by a margin of 8 votes. Respondent Jagdish Prasad submitted Election Petition under Section 20 of the Act stating inter alia that the petitioner was a contractor with the Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar and as per audit report, a huge sum is recoverable from him. As such, nomination should not have been accepted. On the basis of improper existence of nomination of the petitioner his election must be declared void under Section 22 of the Act. The petitioner resisted the election petition and stated that on the date of submission of nomination form, he was not having contract with the Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar. No dues certificate has been issued to him on 3-12-99 certifying that he is not in arrears of any dues of Nagar Panchayat. No objection as to nomination was ever raised by respondent-Jagdish Prasad. Issuance of the demand notice by Nagar Panchayat after the election, is a malafide act and the election of the petitioner was not void, as stated.
3. The Court below has recorded a finding that there was contract between the petitioner and Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar. As per the terms of contract as on the date of nomination, the contract was not concluded and the amount payable under it was even paid to him by delivery of cheques on 7-1-2000, 9-2- 2000, respectively. Therefore, treating the nomination of the petitioner being improperly accepted, set aside the election vide impugned order dated 14-10-2000.
4. Indrajeet Singh (D.W. 1) has stated that he had contract with the Nagar Panchayat which was of the years 1994-95, 95-96. As on the date of nomination, there was no contract between him and the Nagar Panchayat. Ex. D-1, no dues certificate was issued on him on 3-12-99. Dinesh Prasad (P.W. 2), an employee of Nagar Panchayat has stated that the contract was of the years 1994-95, 95-96. The work was carried out by the petitioner even in the year 1998-99. He was issued with the notice of demand (Ex. D-1) to make payment of Rs. 39,600/- as per the audit report. Indrajeet Singh (D.W. 1) has stated that the work order was issued to him on 1-1-98 and two months time was given to complete the work. The work was accordingly completed. In his cross-examination, Indrajeet Singh (D.W. 1) has stated that under the work order dated 1-1-98, payments were made to him on 9-2-2000 also. These payments were referred Ex. D-7 also a certificate dated 31-3-2000, issued by Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar. Towards the work done under the contract, cheques dated 7-1-2000 and 9-2-2000 were issued to the petitioner Indrajeet Singh (D.W. 1). Dinesh Prasad (P.W. 2) has made it specific that towards the aforesaid contract, as per audit petitioner was required to pay Rs. 39,600/- to the Nagar Panchayat. Notices (Exs. P-2 and P-3) were served upon the petitioner on 4-4-2002. Accordingly, it has been amply clear that certificate dated 3-12-199 (Ex. P-1) as to no dues was issued without actually examining the report and the dues standing against the petitioner. In the final settlement the payments were made to the petitioner even on 7-1-2000 and 9-2- 2000 (Ex. D-7) as per audit the petitioner is required to make a payment of Rs. 39,600/-to the Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar towards the contract entered into between him and Nagar Panchayat.
5. The dispute relating to dues had been adjudicated and quantified sum remained unpaid in spite of notice duly served upon the petitioner. It has been stated by the petitioner that once Ex. D-1, no dues certificate was issued and work was completed as per the work order dated 1-1-98, the contract extinguished. The final payment vide Ex. D-7 and audit objection cum demand (Ex. P-1) must not be treated in continuity. The judgment reported in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 236, is as under :–
(e) Representation of the People Act (1951), Section 7(d)–Contract for supply of goods–Continuation of.
A contract for the supply of goods does not terminate when the goods are supplied; it continues in being till it is fully discharged by performance on both sides. It cannot be said that the moment a contract is fully executed on one side and 11 that remains is to receive payment from the other, then the contract terminates and a new relationship of debtor and creditor takes it place. There is always a possibility of the liability being disputed before actual payment is made and the vendor may have to bring an action to establish his claim to payment. The existence of the debt depends on the contract and cannot be established without showing that payment was a term of the contract. It is true the contractor might abandon the contract and sue on ‘quantum meruit but if the other side contest and relied on the terms of the contract, the decision would have to rest on that basis (1905) 2 It R. 590, AIR 1931.
5. Section 7(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 defines the term of disqualification :
(b) “disqualified” means disqualified for being chosen as and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State.
7. Disqualification of the candidates under Section 35 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, is to be viewed with reference to the above definition of disqualified. Section 35 (1) (j) of the Act are as under:–
(i) No person shall be eligible for election or as a President or election or nomination as a Councilor if he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the Council, while owing such share or interest; or (j) has not paid all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election or (nomination) is held or made within thirty days of receipt of a notice of demand made in this behalf by the Chief Municipal Officer.
8. Accordingly, it has been established that the petitioner Indrajeet Singh was a contractor of Nagar Panchayat, Jai Singh Nagar and the contract on the date of nomination dated 7-12-99 was in existence. Petitioner was required to make payment to the Panchayat and no dues certificate (Ex. D-1) was issued to him without taking into account the dues standing against him. Under Section 26 of the Act, revision against the impugned order is limited to the extent to see the legality of the decision being not contrary to law. The jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 20 of the Act was vested with the Court below and on facts and circumstances the finding recorded, vide impugned order is not contrary to law. Impugned order is affirmed. Revision fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their costs.