JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad, J. - These three Writ petitions were heard together, They arise out of motions of no-confidence carried against the Presidents of two Municipal Boards. 2. Civil Misc. Writ No. 30 of 1959 has been filed by Sri Murari Lal Parashar. He was elected President of the Municipal Board, Fatehpur Sikri in the district of Agra in 1956. The Municipal Board consists of the President and 16 members. On October 20, 1958, nine members of the board, including Vijai Singh and Fazlu, delivered to the District Magistrate's, Agra a written notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence in the president. On December 8, Sri C. Chandra, purporting to act as Incharge District Magistrate's, Agra sent notices to the president and members that pursuant to the notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence in the President a meeting of the Municipal Board would be held on December 21, 1958, at noon, at the Boards premises under the Presidentship of Sri Yadav, Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra to consider the said motion. Accordingly a meeting was held on December 21, 1958 at which the motion of no confidence was carried by the Vote of 10 members, including Vijai Singh, Fazlu and Razzak. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the resolution on a number of grounds. He alleged that Vijai Singh, Fazlu and Razzak were in arrears in the payment of municipal taxes or other dues in excess of one years demand to which Section 166 applies both at the time when the first two of them signed the notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence in the petitioner and when the motion of no confidence was passed on December 21, 1958. 3. The petition came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Dwivedi. He formulated the following question- Whether a member, disqualified under Cl. (g) of Section 13-D, ceases to be a member on the date he has incurred the disqualification even though no order removing him from membership for that disqualification has been passed ? 4. The learned Judge directed the papers to be laid before the Honble the Chief Justice for referring the question to a larger Bench. Under orders of the Chief Justice the question was referred to us. * * * * 5. We now take up Civil Misc. 4. The learned Judge directed the papers to be laid before the Honble the Chief Justice for referring the question to a larger Bench. Under orders of the Chief Justice the question was referred to us. * * * * 5. We now take up Civil Misc. Writ No. 30 of 1959, which has been filed by Sri Murari Lal Parashar. As mentioned above, we are not required to dispose of the entire petition. We are only required to answer the question that has been referred to us for decision. 6. Section 13-D (g) runs to the following effect:- 13-D. A person, notwithstanding that he is otherwise qualified, shall be disqualified for being chosen, as, and for being a member of a board if he- ................. (g) is in arrears in the payment of municipal tax or other dues in excess of one years demand to which Sec. 166 applies:...................... 7. We have to ascertain the true import of the expression shall be disqualified for being a member. In the various clauses of Section 13-D, various grounds of disqualification are mentioned. Under Cl. (a) a person becomes disqualified if he is a dismissed servant of a local authority, the State or Central Government and is debarred from re-employment therein. Under clause (b) a person is disqualified to be a member of a board if he is debarred from practising as a legal practitioner. Similarly other grounds are given for incurring disqualification to be a member of the board. There are two provisos to Section 13-D. The first proviso lays down that in cases of Cls. (a) and (b) the disqualification may be removed by an order of the State Government in this behalf. The second proviso reads thus:- Provided further that in the case of (g) the disqualification shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid. 8. Section 40 of the Municipalities Act provides for removal of members. The relevant portion of the section reads thus:- 40 (1). The State Government in the case of a city, or the prescribed authority in any other case, may remove a member of the board on any of the following grounds:- (b) that he has incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12-D and 13-D. 9. On a consideration of these sections, it appears to us that on incurring disqualification under Cl. On a consideration of these sections, it appears to us that on incurring disqualification under Cl. (g) of Section 13-D, the membership of the board is not terminated in the sense that a vacancy is caused. If the effect of disqualification were an automatic termination of the membership, there could be no purpose in making, provision for removal of a member who had incurred the disqualification. The proper construction, as it seems to us, is that the office will not become void unless the member is removed. A person, who incurs disqualification under Cl. (g) of Section 13-D, becomes disqualified to exercise office and to act as a member. During the continuance of the disqualification the persons right to act as a member falls into a state of suspension. On removal of the disqualification the state of suspension disappears and his right to exercise office as a member of the board revives unless he has been removed by Government from membership of the board under Section 40 of the Act during the continuance of disqualification. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents convassed support for the proposition that the person incurring disqualification under Cl. (g) of Section 13-D does not cease to be a member so long as orders for his removal are not passed, he could not function as a member until he is so removed. We find ourselves unable to agree with it. If a member who incurs a disqualification and one who does not, are to be treated on the same footing, there could be no sense in enacting Section 13-D. Reference to Section 113(2) also makes it clear that a disqualified member has not the same status as one who is qualified and a disqualified member is not entitled to take part in the proceedings or cast his vote on matters arising at a meeting. Being conscious of this, the legislature enacted Section 113 which is a saving section. 11. Our answer to the question, therefore, is that a member disqualified under Cl. (g) of Section 13-D does not cease to be a member on the date he has incurred the disqualification until an order removing him from membership for that disqualification has been passed. The result of the disqualification, however, is that such member cannot exercise office during the continuance of the disqualification. 12. (g) of Section 13-D does not cease to be a member on the date he has incurred the disqualification until an order removing him from membership for that disqualification has been passed. The result of the disqualification, however, is that such member cannot exercise office during the continuance of the disqualification. 12. We accordingly return the above answer to the question formulated in Civil Misc. Writ No. 30 of 1959. We dismiss both Civil Misc. Writ No. 446 of 1961 and Civil Misc. Writ No. 846 of 1961, with costs.