G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THE writ Petitioner contested the udupi Taluk Board election held on 20-5-1978 from Kokkarne constituency and got himself elected, according to the results declared on 21-5-1978. One of the citizens challenged the election of the present writ petitioner by filing an election petition under S. 106 of the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') before the Principal Munsiff, Udupi and the Principal Munsiff, Udupi, agreeing with the election petitioner held that the present writ petitioner was disqualified to contest the election as he continued to be a village accountant as his resignation was not yet accepted and in that view he set aside the election by his order dated 28-8-1980, vide Annexure-D. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the District judge, South Kanara, in M. A. No. 23 of 1980 and the learned District Judge reassessing the evidence on record dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 24-11-1980. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has come to be filed. ( 2 ) THE main ground taken in the present writ petition is that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition as the disqualification was a continuing one existing on the date of election and existing even thereafter. The proper remedy according to him was to refer the matter to the Divisional commissioner under S. 103 (3) of the Act, as the case fell within the scope of S. 103 (2 ). ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner invited my attention to S. 103 of of the Act which inter alia reads ;"disqualification of member :- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Taluk Board- (i) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India, or the Government of Karnataka or the Government of any other State in India or any of the local or other authority, subject to the control of any of the said Governments other than such offices as are declared by rules made under this Act not to disqualify the holder". It is not in dispute that the present writ petitioner was a village Accountant drawing salary from the Government. It is not in dispute that the present writ petitioner was a village Accountant drawing salary from the Government. It is his case, howev,cr, that in 1974 he sent his resignation to the Deputy Commissioner. But the Courts below have found that the resignation of the present writ petitioner was not accepted on the date on which he gave his nomination for election and even on the date he was declared elected. Thus, in that view of of the matter the courts below have under s, 103 (1) (i) of the Act held that the present writ petitioner was disqualified to give a nomination for the election and hence they have held that his election is void. It is that order that is challenged before me, ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner further invited my attention to sub-section (2) of S. 103. It reads :"if any member of a Taluk board. (a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in sub-section (1), or (b) votes or takes part as a member in the discussion of any matter in which ,he has directly or indirectly any such share or interest as is described in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (d) of the proviso to subsection (1), his seat shall thereupon become vacant "this clause obviously has nothing to do with the case of the present writ petitioner. What was challenged before the the Election Tribunal was that the present writ petitioner was disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of a taluk board. It is never the case of the applicant before the Tribunal that the present writ petitioner became disqualified subsequent to the election as a member. Therefore, what applies is sub-section (1) of s. 103 and not sub-section (2) of S 103 which speaks of any member of a taluk board becoming subject to any disqualification specified under sub- section (1) after he became a member in which case his seat shall thereupon become vacant. In the case of a member becoming disqualified after he becomes a member, the dispute has to be settled by the Divisional commissioner under sub-section (3) of S. 103. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submitted that since the disqualification is continuing, it can be stated that the present member became disqualified even after he became a member. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submitted that since the disqualification is continuing, it can be stated that the present member became disqualified even after he became a member. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel, because in this case he never became a member in the eye of law as he was disqualified even to contest. Therefore, the case does not fall within sub-section (2) as his very election is void and he never became a member. If he had become a member his election not being challenged and subsequently he incurred disqualification sub-section (2) would apply. There is no scope for confusion in sub-section (1) and (2 ). Sub-section (1) speaks of disqualification of a person to contest the ejection in which case he could never be elected as a member. Sub section (2) tpeaks of a contingency where he is legally elected as a member, but subsequently incurs disqualification. Therefore it makes no sense to submit that the disqualification continued after the member was elected as a member. In my considered view, by virtue of the disqualification even at the time of nomination, contest and declaration of results, he never became a member of the panchayat as his election was held void by the Tribunal i e. , the Principal Munsiff, confirmed by the District Judge-the appellate Authority. Hence there is no substance in the submission that he became a member and that the disqualification was continuing, and hence sub-section (2) of S. 103 applies to the facts of the case. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the writ petitioner invited my attention to a division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of It pertains to election of a disqualified member to the village Panchayat whose election was not challenged by an election petition as in the present case. Honourable Mr Justice somanath Iyer, who spoke for the bench has made this position clear (vide page 625 ). He has observed :"in respect of a disqualification existing on the date of election, the proper remedy to be pursued, when he has been elected, is to challenge the election under S. 13 (3) (A) (a) of the Act. It is only in that election petition, that the question whether the disqualification imputed to him existed or not, has to be investigated. It is only in that election petition, that the question whether the disqualification imputed to him existed or not, has to be investigated. " ( 7 ) IN the present case such an election petition is instituted and the election of the present writ petitioner is held void. Hence the aforesaid decision goes to support the view that I have taken. In the result, therefore, the Writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine as devoid of merits. --- *** --- .