Ramappa v. Sangappa and Others

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Ramappa v. Sangappa, (1959) SCR 1167 examined the disqualification of candidates from contesting elections for the Mysore State Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The Returning Officer rejected the nominations of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa, and Guru Rao, as they were Patels and Shanbhogs, holding hereditary village offices under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. The central issue was whether hereditary village officers holding such offices were under the Government and whether they held offices of profit. The Court analyzed the statutory provisions, appointment process, control, remuneration, and dismissal of such office holders. It ruled that even with hereditary rights, these officers required formal appointments from the Government, worked under its supervision, received remuneration from Government funds, and could be removed by it. The Supreme Court reversed the Mysore High Court’s decision and upheld the Returning Officer’s action, reaffirming that hereditary village officers are holders of offices of profit under the Government, leading to disqualification under Article 191.

Keywords: Office of Profit, Disqualification, Hereditary Office, Village Offices Act 1908, Article 191, Election Law, Representation of People Act 1951, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, Mysore Government.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Ramappa v. Sangappa and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 251 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date:
August 21-22, 1958

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Venkatarama Aiyar, Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice A.K. Sarkar

vii) Citation:
(1959) SCR 1167

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • Article 191 of the Constitution of India

  • Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

  • Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 of the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Election Law, Administrative Law, Service Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose during the elections to the Mysore Legislative Assembly in 1957. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of three candidates on the ground that they held village offices as Patels and Shanbhogs, thus holding offices of profit under the Government. The appellants challenged the validity of this rejection through an election petition, which led to the central question of whether such hereditary village offices fall within the purview of Article 191 disqualification. The legal conflict revolved around the interpretation of “office of profit under the Government” as it applies to hereditary village officers.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The nominations of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa, and Guru Rao were rejected because they were respectively Patels and a Shanbhog under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. The Returning Officer deemed that these positions constituted offices of profit under the Government. As a consequence, only two candidates remained in the fray, and the appellant was elected. Subsequently, six electors filed an election petition challenging the Returning Officer’s decision under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Tribunal rejected the petition, but on appeal, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Supreme Court had to adjudicate whether the Returning Officer correctly interpreted the legal status of the village offices.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether hereditary village officers like Patels and Shanbhogs are holders of offices of profit under the Government.

ii) Whether their nomination papers were rightly rejected on grounds of disqualification under Article 191 of the Constitution.

iii) Whether appointment by Government, despite hereditary claims, makes these offices governmental in nature.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The appellants argued that the village offices were statutory positions under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. They emphasized that even though hereditary succession was involved, final appointment vested solely with the Government. Without a formal appointment, heirs could not assume office. They highlighted provisions such as Section 8(1) and 8(2) which limit eligibility through specific statutory qualifications. They also contended that Section 7 allowed Government discretion to dismiss officeholders, proving state control.

They further argued that the officers performed duties under Government supervision, received emoluments either directly or indirectly from Government funds, and acted as administrative functionaries rather than representatives of village communities. The appellants heavily relied on the principle that office holders derive authority and sustenance from Government appointment, remuneration, supervision, and removal.

In support, the appellants cited R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India (1936) 64 IA 55 and Gould v. Stuart (1896) AC 575, both cases establishing that statutory modifications could limit at-pleasure dismissal without affecting the “under the Government” character of the office.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The respondents contended that village offices were hereditary in nature and originated under customary village administration. They argued that Government merely recognized existing hereditary rights, and did not create or control these offices in any substantive way. They emphasized that appointments were automatic and the Government’s role was merely formal.

They also asserted that the revenue collected by Patels and Shanbhogs was not paid by the Government, but directly deducted as remuneration from collections made on behalf of the community, negating any employer-employee relationship. They cited Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 Punj 58, arguing that mere Government involvement in appointment or dismissal did not automatically make an office subordinate to Government.

Further, the respondents argued that since Article 310 concerning dismissal at the pleasure of the President or Governor did not apply, these officers could not be considered Government servants holding office of profit.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Constitution of India:

  • Article 191(1)(a): Disqualification for membership if a person holds an office of profit under Government.

ii) Representation of the People Act, 1951:

  • Section 100(1)(c): Election may be declared void if nomination is improperly rejected.

iii) Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908:

  • Section 6: Abolition and creation of offices upon restructuring of villages.

  • Section 7: Power of dismissal and suspension.

  • Section 8: Succession regulated subject to eligibility conditions.

  • Section 9: Civil suits for enforcement of rights.

iv) Judicial Precedents:

  • R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India (1936) 64 IA 55

  • Gould v. Stuart (1896) AC 575

  • Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 Punj 58

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that hereditary rights do not automatically entitle heirs to assume office without Government appointment. Even if the Government must appoint an heir under statutory compulsion, it remains the appointing authority.

ii) The Government’s control over eligibility, appointment, duties, remuneration, and dismissal confirmed that the office is held under the Government.

iii) The Court clarified that Article 310’s doctrine of dismissal at pleasure was not a sole determinant for office of profit under the Government.

iv) The nature of remuneration—whether paid directly or indirectly—was irrelevant since funds originated from Government revenues.

v) The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab, distinguishing it as factually and legally distinct.

vi) The Court ruled that the nomination papers were rightly rejected and the petitioners had no case under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that no office can exist without being under someone’s authority. If not under Government, then under whom?

ii) The Court noted that village communities lacked corporate existence, making the argument of offices being under village communities unsustainable.

c. GUIDELINES 

The Court indirectly laid down certain principles regarding office of profit:

  • Government appointment remains decisive for determining offices under Government.

  • Statutory regulation of hereditary succession does not negate Government control.

  • Source of remuneration—direct or indirect—does not alter the character of office.

  • Dismissal protection under statute does not disqualify an office from being under Government.

  • Practical control, supervision, and authority over duties establish Governmental nature.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India (1936) 64 IA 55
ii) Gould v. Stuart (1896) AC 575
iii) Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 Punj 58

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Constitution of India – Article 191
ii) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(c)
iii) Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 – Sections 6, 7, 8, 9

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp