JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Election Officer of Parlakemedi Municipality dated 19-10-1963 rejecting the nomination of the Petitioner as a candidate for election to a ward in the said municipality. His rival candidate objected to his election alleging that he was the registered clerk of one Shri R.K. Gorti who was a paid legal practitioner engaged by the municipality. The Election Officer observed in his order that the correspondence between Mr. Gorti and the Municipal Chairman showed that on the recommendation of Mr. Gorti an additional remuneration of Rs. 15/- was recommended to be granted to the Petitioner for the work done by him on behalf of the Municipality. A copy of the letter sent by Mr. Gorti to the Municipality has also been filed as annexure B to the counter affidavit filed by the other side, and there Mr. Gorti has stated as follows: The Municipality has filed a number of civil suits. It is difficult to get the work done without the assistance of a Clerk. My clerk is attending to all the work. He deserves remuneration for his work. The Election Officer, while supporting the recommendation of Mr. Gorti wrote as follows (see annexure B) The Clerk of the Municipal Advocate has been doing our civil work sincerely, so he deserves a remuneration of Rs. 15/- p.m. In the counter affidavit of the Deputy Collector in Charge it is further stated that this sum of Rs. 15/- was subsequently being paid indirectly to the Petitioner by increasing the retainer fee of Mr. Gorti by that sum. 2. Clause (viii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Orissa Municipal Act says that a person shall not be qualified for a seat in the municipality if he "is interested in a subsisting contract either directly or indirectly made with or any other work being done for the municipality..." In other words, if a person is interested in any work being done for the municipality the disqualification attaches to him. The work here may include not only physical work but also mental work. On the materials placed before the Election Officer therefore there can be no doubt that the Petitioner was doing work (both mental and physical) for the Municipality, by looking after its cases in the law courts. The work here may include not only physical work but also mental work. On the materials placed before the Election Officer therefore there can be no doubt that the Petitioner was doing work (both mental and physical) for the Municipality, by looking after its cases in the law courts. It is not stated by the Petitioner anywhere that he was doing work without remuneration. In any case we are satisfied that, on the materials before him, the Election Officer was justified in holding that the Petitioner was interested indirectly in the work that was being done for the municipality and hence, in my opinion, his nomination was rightly rejected. 3. The revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) only. Misra, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed