KANTAWALA C.J. - Applicant Dattatraya Narhar Pitale has filed this Revision Application against the order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Amravati setting aside his election to Amravati Municipal Council from Ward No. 25. Elections to Amravati Municipal Council were held in July 1967 under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There were several Wards within the limits of Amravati Municipal Council and from Ward No. 25 there were 3 candidates viz. the applicant, opponent No.1 and opponent No.2. The applicant secured highest number of votes viz., 352 while opponents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively secured 203 and 198 votes. As the applicant secured highest number of votes, he was declared elected.

2. On August 21, 1967 opponent No.2 filed an election petition under section 21 (1) of the Act challenging the validity of the election of the applicant. The only ground on which the validity of the election was challenged, was that the wife of the applicant was employed as the Head-Mistress in Municipal Marathi Girls I. E M. School, Amravati, that she was residing with the applicant in the same house and that accordingly the applicant was disqualified under section 16 (1) (i) of the Act. This election petition was heard before the learned Extra Assistant Judge. It was admitted on behalf of the applicant before him that the wife of the applicant was residing with him and that she was employed as the Head-Mistress in the Municipal School. But on his behalf two contentions were raised before the learned Judge; firstly it was contended that having regard to the provisions of Rule 15 (10) of the· Maharashtra Municipalities Election Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') and section 44 of the Act, it was not permissible to opponent No.2 to challenge the validity of his election on the ground that the applicant was disqualified having regard to the provisions of section 16 (1) (i) of the Act; secondly it was contended that mere employment of his wife as Head-Mistress in the Municipal School was not a disqualification within "the meaning of section 16 (1) (i) of the Act. Both these contentions of the applicant were rejected by the learned Judge and by his order dated July 21, 1968 he set aside the election.

3. It may incidentally be observed that while these proceedings were pending one Suganchand Choudhari initiated proceedings before the Collector, Amravati under section 44 of the Act for declaring that by reason of the employment of the wife of the applicant he was disqualified within the meaning of section 16 (1) (i) of the Act, that he was disabled from continuing to be a Councillor and the Office ought to be declared vacant. In those proceedings the Collector decided against Suganchand Choudhari and took the view that the applicant incurred no disqualification within the meaning of section 16 (1) (i) of the Act.

4. Against the order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge the applicant has come in revision before us.

5. This revision application initially came up for hearing before Gatne J. but the learned Judge found that there were some conflict amongst the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court and he thought it proper to refer this matter to the Full Bench for decision. Accordingly the matter has come up before us for decision.

6. Mr. Deshpande on behalf of the applicant contended that in a petition under section 21 of the Act the election of a successful candidate can only be challenged on the ground that he is guilty of corrupt practice and that it is not permissible in such a petition to urge by way of a ground a plea as regards disqualification of a Councillor as contemplated by section 16 (1)(i) of the Act. His argument is that disqualification on the ground of section 16 (1) (i) can only be agitated in proceedings as can be resorted to as provided by section 44 of the Act. Secondly he contended that by the mere fact that the wife of the applicant was