ORDER.- This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the order of the Election Court, District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, with its connected records, and to quash the same. The petitioner filed his nomination for election to the Panchayat on 31st January, 1965, for the second ward, a three member constitutency in Madhakudi Panchayat. Along with the petitioner, the first respondent Chinnathambi and three others filed nominations. The nomination of the petitioner was objected to on the ground that he was disqualified under section 25 of Act XXXV of 1958 in that on the date of the nomination the sentence imposed on him for an offence, had not expired within five years. The objection was overruled and the petitioner was allowed to contest. The petitioner secured 308 votes and was declared elected. The first respondent filed an election petition pleading that the nomination of the petitioner ought to have been rejected. The election of the petitioner was set aside. The petitioner was found guilty, convicted for an offence under section 406, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two months R.I. on roth June, 1959, by the Sub-Magistrate, and the appeal to the District Magistrate failed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed on 13th July, 1959. A revision to the High Court was also dismissed on 28th July, 1960. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Panchayat in June, 1959. He went to jail on 19th August, 1960, after his revision to the High Court failed. After undergoing the sentence, he was released on 3rd October, 1960. Section 25 (1) of Act XXXV of 1958 may be extracted. “ A person who has been sentenced by a Criminal Court to imprisonment for any offence involving moral delinquency (such sentence not having been reversed) shall be disqualified for election as a member while undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof” . It is not disputed that the petitioner was sentenced by a criminal Court for an offence involving moral delinquency, the offence being breach of trust. The disqualification for election according to the section is during the time when he is undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof, that is five years from the date of release namely 30th October, 1960. The disqualification for election according to the section is during the time when he is undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof, that is five years from the date of release namely 30th October, 1960. The date of nomination being 31st January, 1965, is clearly within the period envisaged under section 25. Mr. Vedantachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 16 of the Panchayat Act, X of 1950, the Government was authorised to direct that a sentence by the criminal Court shall not operate as a disqualification and that in exercise of that power, they directed that the sentence on the petitioner would not operate as disqualification. By virtue of that order, the petitioner did continue as the President during the last term. Learned Counsel submitted that Act XXXV of 1958 came into force on 2nd October, 1960, and that section 25 cannot operate retrospectively and can take effect only in respect of convictions after that date. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear wording of section 25. On the date of the election if a person was undergoing sentence, or his sentence expired within five years, he is disqualified. The fact that under the provisions of the Panchayat Act the Government directed that the sentence would not operate as a disqualification, or that the conviction was before the Act came into force, will not make any difference. It was sought to be contended that the words “date of expiration thereof” would mean the date of conviction and sentence and a period of five years from the date on which the sentence was passed must be calculated. I do not think the construction attempted is possible when the wording is clear that the period is “ five years from the date of expiration thereof.” “ Expiration thereof” cannot refer to the date of the sentence, but only to the date on which the sentence had expired. The lower Court was therefore correct in holding that the petitioner was disqualified. This petition is dismissed with costs of the first respondent Rs. 100. V.S. ------------ Petition dismissed.