Election disqualification for municipal tax arrears attaches at nomination, and later payment does not cure it.

The expression "disqualified for being chosen as" was construed to cover the entire electoral process from nomination onward, so a disqualification existing on the nomination date attached at that stage. Subsequent payment of municipal tax arrears before the poll did not operate retrospectively to cure that disqualification for the election in question. The reference in section 13-D(g) to arrears "to which section 166 applies" was held to describe the nature of the dues, not to import the procedural requirement of a bill or demand notice under sections 166 and 168. The absence of such notice therefore did not prevent the disqualification from operating.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate who was in arrears of municipal tax on the date of nomination was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Municipal Board, and whether subsequent payment of the arrears before the poll removed that disqualification; and whether the absence of a bill under section 166 or a demand notice under section 168 prevented the disqualification under section 13-D(g) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 from operating.

Analysis: The expression "disqualified for being chosen as" was held to cover the whole electoral process beginning with nomination and not merely the date of polling. Nomination was treated as an integral stage of election, so a disqualification existing on the date of nomination attached at that stage. The second proviso, which stated that the disqualification ceases when arrears are paid, was held not to operate retrospectively so as to cure a disqualification that already existed on the nomination date. The reference in clause (g) to arrears "to which section 166 applies" was construed as describing the nature of the dues, not as importing the procedural requirements of presentation of bill or service of demand notice under sections 166 and 168. The word "demand" was also read in context as referring to the amount of arrears or dues, not to a prior formal demand notice.

Conclusion: The candidate was disqualified on the date he filed his nomination, and the subsequent payment did not remove that disqualification for the election in question. The absence of a bill or demand notice did not take the case outside section 13-D(g).

---