Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was elected Chairman of the Shencottah Municipal Council in February 1953 and a motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairman was moved and carried under S. 44 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, (Act XXIII of 1116) on 7.9.1954 and the prayer in the petition is that this court should "issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order for removing the proceedings of the Municipal Council, Shencottah, referred to in the affidavit and dated 7.3.1954 to this court and to quash the same". 2. The petition was filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the hearing that he was invoking only Art. 226 and not both the Articles mentioned in the petition. 3. The only ground urged before me in support of the petition was that the Collector was in error in refusing to decide the question of the disqualification of six of the councillors under S. 53 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, which was raised by the petitioner. The order of the Collector reads as follows: "This special meeting of the Council under S. 44(3) of the District Municipalities Act has been convened for the purpose of considering a motion of no-confidence in the Chairman presented to me under sub-cl. (2) of the above section. No other matter can be discussed or considered in the meeting. I have issued notice to all the Councillors of the Municipality as notified in the Gazette. I am not competent to consider whether any Councillors have incurred any disqualification under the Act and are therefore not eligible to attend this special meeting. This petition is therefore presented to me without jurisdiction and is therefore rejected". 4. As stated above the only question for determination is whether the Collector had any right to go into the question of the disqualification alleged by the petitioner or not. This petition is therefore presented to me without jurisdiction and is therefore rejected". 4. As stated above the only question for determination is whether the Collector had any right to go into the question of the disqualification alleged by the petitioner or not. S. 54 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, provides: "(1) Whenever it is alleged that any person who has been elected as a Councillor is disqualified under S. 51, S. 52, S. 53 or S. 56 and such person does not admit the allegation or whenever any Councillor is himself in doubt, whether or not he has become disqualified for office, under S. 53 or S. 56, such councillor or any other Councillor may, and the executive authority, at the request of the Council, shall apply to the District Judge of the District in which the Municipality is situated. (2) The said judge, after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, shall determine whether or not such person is disqualified under S. 51, S. 52, S. 53 or S. 56, and his decision shall be final. (3) Pending such decision the Councillor shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified". As I read S. 54, sub-s. (3) thereof provides a complete answer to the petitioner's contention that the Collector was wrong in not pronouncing on the question of disqualification alleged by him. It should be clear from the section that the only mode in which a disqualification can be established is by an application to "the District Judge of the district in which the Municipality is situated" and that pending his decision the councillor is entitled to act "as if he were not disqualified". 5. Mr. Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the words "pending such decision" in sub-s. (3) should lead to the inference that the Councillor is entitled to act as if he were not disqualified not at all times subsequent to his election and prior to an adverse decision under sub-s. (2) but only during the period in which an application under sub-s. (1) is actually pending disposal before the District judge of the district in which the Municipality is situated. In other words, during the period subsequent to the election and prior to the filing of an application before the District Judge a Councillor, according to him, is not entitled to act under sub-s. (3) "as if he were not disqualified". There is no warrant for this submission and the wording of the section affords no support for the same. 6. S. 51 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Act V of 1920), corresponds to S. 54 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, and as stated by Devadoss, J., on the basis of sub-s. (3) of that Section - "Pending such decision the Councillor shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified" - in A.I.R. 1928 Madras 641; "The plain meaning of Cl. 3 would exclude any other remedy, as no decision of any other tribunal in any other proceedings declaring the Councillor to be disqualified would have any force when the clause says he shall be deemed to be qualified unless and until the decision of the District Court is given against him". 7. It follows that in the view I have taken regarding the scope and effect of S. 54 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, the Collector was right in declining to adjudicate on the existence or otherwise of the disqualification urged and that this petition must fail. 8. The petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.