District judge if persona designate or Court while dealing with application for disqualification,

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the order of the District Judge of South Arcot passed on an application presented to him by a councillor of the Tindivanam Municipality under section 51 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, praying that it may be adjudged after inquiry whether or not the respondent to his application was disqualified under section 50 of the said Act. The petitioner in the Court below who will be referred to as “the petitioner” in this C.R.P. was elected as a councillor for one of the wards in the Tindivanam Municipality in 1952. The respondent to the said petition who will be referred to as “the respondent” was also elected similarly for another ward and subsequently elected Chairman of the Municipality. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had ceased to hold his office by reason of section 50(1)(A) of the Act in that he became a leper. The learned District Judge held that the respondent was therefore disqualified and hence has ceased to hold his office as Municipal Councillor. It is against this order of the District Judge that the present revision petition has been filed.

Under section 50(1)(b) of the Act, a councillor shall cease to hold his office if he becomes of unsound mind, a deaf, mute, or a leper. Section 51 of the Act provides inter alia that whenever it is alleged that any person who has been elected as a councillor is disqualified under section 50 and such person does not admit the allegation, any councillor may apply to the District Judge of the District in which the Municipality is situate, and the said District Judge, after making such inquiry as he deems necessary shall determine whether or not such person is disqualified under that section. Clause (3) of the section provides that pending such decision the councillor shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified.

The learned Judge, held, accepting the report from the Superintendent, Government Lady Willingdon Leprosy Sanatorium, Tirumani Chingleput, that the respondent was afflicted with leprosy. In view of this, he held that the respondent had ceased to hold office. Several contentions were urged before him by the respondent who is the petitioner before me. It was first contended, relying on a certificate given by one Dr. Rajah on 16th February 1954 that the respondent was not a leper on the date of the inquiry, he could not be held to have ceased to hold his office under section 50(1)(A). Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the material date for ascertaining whether or not a particular councillor had ceased to hold office on account of a disqualification was the date of the inquiry. In my opinion, this contention is opposed to the plain language of section 50. That section enacts that if a councillor becomes subject to one or other of the dis-qualifications enumerated therein, he shall cease to hold his office No doubt, in case of dispute, section 51 provides for recourse to the District Judge. But it is not as a result of the order of the District Judge that a councillor ceases to hold his office. The councillor ceases to hold office because of the supervening disqualification. It may be that no application has been filed under section 51 It may be that an application is filed late. It does not mean, however, that merely because an application has not been filed or had not been filed within certain time that the councillor, though disqualified under any one of the provisions (a) to (i), nevertheless does not cease to hold his office till determination by the District Judge This point is, I think covered by the observations of Wallace, J., in Subbaroya Goundan v. Muthu Kumaraswami Goundan1. In that case, the learned Judge was dealing with the analogous provision, section 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920. The learned Judge repelling an argument similar to one addressed to me, said:-

“There is no limitatio