JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of Raman Nayar, J. allowing O. P. No. 1571 of 1963 and setting aside, the decision of the District Judge of Kozhikode in Election Petition No. 6 of 1962. The decision of the District Judge Ext. C dated 6 8 1963 said: "I declare that the election of the first respondent is void and further declare that the second respondent has been duly elected in the place of the first respondent." The first respondent before the District Judge was the petitioner in O. P. No. 1571 of 1963. He is the first respondent in this writ appeal. 2. The sole question for determination is whether the first respondent before us was disqualified for election as a councillor under S.52(2)(e) of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961. S.52 deals with the disqualification of candidates and the relevant portion of sub-s.(2) thereof reads as follows: "A person shall be disqualified for election as a councillor if, at the date of election, he- (e) is interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, the corporation except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this Act." It is common ground that the words "or any work being done for" and "except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this Act" are of no significance as far as this case is concerned. 3. S.2(9) of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961, defines the expression "Corporation" as meaning the Corporation of Calicut. S.4 of the Act says that the municipal authorities charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act are a council, standing committees of the council and a commissioner; and S.5(3): "The council shall by name of the 'Corporation of Calicut' be a body corporate, and have perpetual succession and a common seal and may by such name sue and be sued." 4. The contract on the basis of which the District Judge came to the conclusion that the first respondent was disqualified for election as a councillor Ext. A 1 in Election Petition No. 6 of 1962 is dated 1-2-1961. The contract on the basis of which the District Judge came to the conclusion that the first respondent was disqualified for election as a councillor Ext. A 1 in Election Petition No. 6 of 1962 is dated 1-2-1961. The Corporation of Calicut is a creature of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961, and it cannot possibly have come into being prior to 1-11-1962, the date on which that Act came into force by virtue of a notification of the Government under S.443 of the Act. In order to attract the disqualification Ext. A 1 should be a contract made with the corporation and it is impossible to say that Ext. A 1 is such a contract. When the contract came into being the corporation was not in existence and even the Act under which it could come into existence was not in force. 5. Ext. A 1 in Election Petition No. 6 of 1962 was a contract with the Calicut Municipal Council constituted under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to S.439(a) of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961, which says: "all property and all interests of whatever kind owned by, vested in or held in trust by or for the Calicut Municipal Council with all rights of whatever kind used, enjoyed or possessed by the said municipal council as constituted under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, as well as all liabilities legally subsisting against the said municipal council shall pass to the corporation as constituted under this Act;" This provision is certainly not sufficient to make a contract made with the Calicut Municipal Council a contract made with the Corporation of Calicut. S.439(a) does not, as pointed out by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal, engraft any legal fiction to the effect that a contract made with the Calicut Municipal Council shall be deemed to be a contract made with the Corporation of Calicut. And in the absence of a legal fiction an antenatal contract with the Corporation of Calicut cannot be imagined or accepted. 6. It follows that the first respondent did not suffer from any disqualification under S.52(2)(e) of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961, at the date of election, that the decision of the District Judge was rightly set aside in O. P. No. 1571 of 1963, and that this Writ Appeal should fail. 6. It follows that the first respondent did not suffer from any disqualification under S.52(2)(e) of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961, at the date of election, that the decision of the District Judge was rightly set aside in O. P. No. 1571 of 1963, and that this Writ Appeal should fail. The writ appeal is dismissed and the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal and in the original petition from which it arises.