ORDER
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. The civil revision petition is filed against an order in I.A. No. 16 of 1995 in Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986.
2. The civil revision petitioner is the first respondent in O.P. and the respondent in the civil revision petition is the petitioner in election O.P. No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Ami. The parties are referred to herein as shown in the civil revision petition. The respondent filed a petition in Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986 challenging the election of the civil revision petitioner, on the ground that the civil revision petitioner is not a Hindu and by a false representation that he belonged to Adi Dravida Community, he filed a declaration before the Electoral Officer stating that he belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida Community, though he was a Christian. The election was held for election of a councillor for Ward No. 12, which is a reserved constituency for Adi Dravida Community. The election for Ward No. 12, Ami Municipality was held on 24.2.1986 and the civil revision petitioner was elected as the councillor in the said election. The respondent, therefore, prayed that the election of the civil revision petitioner as councillor should be set aside and for a consequential declaration that the respondent was the duly elected councillor in the said election. During the pendency of the Election O.P. the respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 44 of 1986 with the prayer that the court should summon certain documents relating to the civil revision petitioner and that application was ordered by the trial Judge by an order dated 11.11.1986. There was another interim application in I.A. No. 45 of 1986, wherein the respondent has requested that certain other documents relating to the birth Register should be summoned. That petition was also ordered by the lower court. Against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1986, the civil revision petitioner has filed earlier C.R.P. Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 and this Court has ordered interim stay of the further proceedings in O.P. No. 1 of 1986. In 1991, the term of the Municipal Councillor came into an end and the civil revision petitioner served the full term as a councillor in the said Municipality. Hence, in the year 1994 when the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 came up for hearing before this Court, on the basis of the representation made by the counsel for the civil revision petitioner, that the petitions have become infructuous, this Court had dismissed the C.R.P. Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 by an order dated 23.6.1994. The civil revision petitioner then filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Judge on the ground that his term as a Councillor has already expired and the Municipality is functioning without any Municipal Commissioner. According, to the civil revision petitioner, the election petition has thus become infructuous and hence, any further enquiry with reference to the Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986 would be futile and academic in nature and hence he prayed that the main election petition should be dismissed as infructuous. The lower court held that it would be open to consider the question whether the main Election Petition O.P. No. 1 of 1986 has become infructuous or not at the time of trial of the Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986. The lower court therefore, held that the interim application filed by the civil revision petitioner to dismiss the election petition is not sustainable in law. It, therefore, held that till the main election petition is taken up for trial, it is not possible to dismiss the election O.P. No. 1 of 1986 even on the basis of an interim application. In this view of the matter, the lower court rejected the application filed by the civil revision petitioner.
3. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the election for the post of a Councillor in Arni Municipality was held on 23.2.1986 and the civil revision petitioner was declared elected as Municipal Commissioner. He has served the full term as Municipal Councillor and he is no longer as Municipal Councillor, after the expiry of the term of the Municipal Councillor. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the period as Councillor has already expired, it will be a futile exercise for the trial court to go into the question whether the civil revision petitioner was justified in declaring himself as a Hindu Scheduled Caste, when he filed his nomination paper. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, contended that if he stands in the future election on the basis that he belongs to that Community, it will be always open to the respondent to contest the claim of the civil revision petitioner in the said election. Since the term of the councillor has already ended, it will be a mere exercise in futility for the court to decide the issue whether the civil revision petitioner was really a Hindu Adi Dravida or not.
4. Mr. Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the civil revision petitioner contested the election, he declared himself as a Hindu Scheduled Caste and made a declaration to that effect and the declaration has certain legal consequences, if the declaration is found to be a false declaration. He referred to Section 44-B of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and contended that by making a false declaration before the Electoral Officer, the civil revision petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 44-B of the Act. He also referred to Section 49, which prescribes the disqualification of candidates. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 60 of the said Act and contended that if a person is convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be disqualified from voting or from being elected in any election, for a period of five years from the date of his conviction. He also referred to the rules for decision of disputes as to the validity of elections held under Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and contended that it is not open to the civil revision petitioner to contend that the election petition should be closed. He, therefore, contended that the trial Judge was justified in dismissing the application.
5. It is not in dispute that the election for the post of a councillor in Ward No. 12, Arni Municipality was held on 23.2.1986. Ward No. 12 is a reserved constituency. It is also not disputed that the civil revision petitioner filed a declaration before the Tahsildar that he belonged to a Hindu Scheduled Caste and on the basis of the declaration made by him he stood in the election and he was successful in the election and he was duly elected as a Councillor. No doubt, it is true the period of the said Municipal Council has expired in the year 1991. It is significant to note that the respondent has filed the election O.P. in the year 1986. She was also successful in getting some interim orders in summoning certain records from authorities. The civil revision petitioner then approached this Court on an earlier occasion in C.R.P. Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 and obtained interim stay of the proceedings before the lower court in Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986. It is only on 23rd June, 1994, when the civil revision petitions were posted, on the basis of the representation made by the counsel for the civil revision petitioner to the effect that the petitions have become infructuous, the civil revision petitions were dismissed. It is not due to their fault of the respondent, the Election O.P. is kept pending on the file of the lower court. After getting interim stay of the proceedings before the lower court and subsequently getting an order of dismissal of the civil revision petitions in the year 1994, the civil revision petitioner filed an application to dismiss the Election O.P., itself on the ground that it has become infructuous. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, if a person makes a false declaration before the Tahsildar, which is false and which he knows or believes to be false, he shall be punishable with imprisonment. Section 49 of the said Act provides for disqualification of candidates and under Sub-section (1) of Section 49, if a person has been sentenced by a criminal court for a period or more than six months, he is ineligible to contest the election, while undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of expiration of the sentence. Similarly, Section 60 of the Act provides for disqualification of a person convicted of election offences, particularly, the provisions found in Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code and if a person is convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be disqualified from voting or from standing in any election for a period of five years from the date of his conviction. The main question that is raised in the election O.P. is that the civil revision petitioner does not belong to Hindu schedule caste, but he is a Christian and by a false declaration, he stood for the Municipal Election is a reserved constituency and was duly elected. The issue whether the declaration made by the civil revision petitioner before the Tahsildar was false or not has necessarily to be gone into and decided by the trial Judge at the time of trial of the O.P. and if the election court comes to the conclusion that the declaration made by the civil revision petitioner was false, if has certain legal consequence flowing therefore and it will have serious consequences against the civil revision petitioner either in the matter standing for the election or in the exercise of the right to vote in the future election. So, it cannot be held that on the expiry of the period prescribed for the said Municipal Council, the election petition has become infructuous and futile. Hence, the contention that the expiry of the time limit for the councillor has fore-closed the consideration of the question of the status of civil revision petitioner is misconceived. The question whether there was also declaration or not by the civil revision petitioner has necessarily to gone into at the time of trial in the main election petition. Hence, I am of the view that it is not open to the civil revision petitioner to forestall the proceedings of the trial of the main election petition by means of an interim application. That apart, Rule 7 of the Rules under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which provides for withdrawal of the election petition has no application to the facts of the case as the civil revision petitioner is the respondent in the main election petition and the said Rule 7 has no application. Rule 8 of the said Rules providing for abatement of election petition should proceed in accordance with law and on the conclusion of the enquiry, there should be a declaration whether the election of the returned candidate is a valid or not with the consequential directions. I am unable to see in what manner the learned Subordinate Judge has acted with material irregularity, and I should think in the circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a proper and correct conclusion that the application filed by the civil revision petitioner deserves dismissal. The reasons, given by the lower court are correct and convincing and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower court. Consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequent to the dismissal of the revision petition. C.M.P. No. 8454 of 1996 is also dismissed.