M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is presented by one of the candidates contesting the office of the Town Municipal Councillor of kerur Town, Badami Tlk. , Bijapur Dt. He is aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination paper on the sole ground that he was a contractor executing work for the Municipality on the date he filed his nomination, and therefore, was disqualified under S. 16 (n) of the karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. That objection was taken by one of the rival candidates before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers. ( 2 ) THE enquiry was held as contemplated under Sub-rule (1) of R. 19 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977. At the enquiry the petitioner produced what is described as affidavit by the chief Executive Officer of the Town muncipality concerned stating that there were no dues by the petitioner and that he had finished all the work entrusted to him. That was dated 7. 7. 1983, which was the date of scrutiny of the nomination in the instan case. The returning officer apparenitly, as is obvious, took the view that the affidavit bearing the date 7. 7. 1983 cannot cure disqualification that esisted on 5. 7. 1983, the date of filing nominations. Nothing more can be gathered from the order of the Returning Officer. ( 3 ) IT would be necessary to state that in accordance with Rule 19 (2) (a), disqualification could be incurre by a candidate on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers and not on the date of filing nomination. This is expressly stated in the rule in question itself and no special rule of construction need be adopted to enunciate the law. The returning Officer has clearly not read the rule. ( 4 ) BUT in this proceeding under art. 226 of the Constitution, it is not possible to determine either the authenticity of the affidavit, correctness of the affidavit or whether a contract indeed subsisted on 7. 7. 1983. That is a matter for evidence, which could be properly adjudicated upon only in an election petition filed under S. 21 of the karnataka Muncipalities Act, 1964. 226 of the Constitution, it is not possible to determine either the authenticity of the affidavit, correctness of the affidavit or whether a contract indeed subsisted on 7. 7. 1983. That is a matter for evidence, which could be properly adjudicated upon only in an election petition filed under S. 21 of the karnataka Muncipalities Act, 1964. In the result, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the proper Tribunal to adjudicate his rights, this writ petition is rejected without rule being issued, subject to the observations made with regard to the date relevant for the purpose of incurring disqualification to contest the election for the office of town Muncipal Councillor. --- *** --- .