Order of Reference:† Anakavur is a minor Panchayat governed by the provisions of Act X of 1950. The Panchayat was divided into five wards with a provision for the election of three members from each ward. Elections were held on 12th April, 1958. The validity of the election for Ward No. V was challenged in W.P. No. 339 of 1958 and the validity of the election to Ward No. IV was challenged in W.P. No. 340 of 1958. The total number of registered voters in Ward No. V was 355 and 287 of them exercised their franchise. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 339 of 1958 were the candidates. Respondent 1 polled 315 votes; respondent 2, 186 votes and respondent 3 and the petitioner each polled 180 votes. As between respondent 3 and the petitioner, lots were cast, and respondent 3 succeeded. So respondents 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected. The total number of registered voters in Ward No. IV was 616, and 416 polled their votes. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 340 of 1958 got respectively 380, 315 and 297 votes as against 263 votes polled by the petitioner. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected. Each of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 339 and 340 of 1958 filed an election petition challenging the validity of the returned candidates. They also applied under Article 226 of the Constitution. In form the relief asked for was a writ of mandamus: “to restrain the returned candidate from functioning as validly elected member of the Panchayat.” The elections were conducted in accordance with the Rules relating to the Conduct of Elections of Members of Panchayats as finally amended by G.O. No. 430. (L.A.), dated nth March, 1958. The main question that arises for determination in these proceedings is, whether there is any conflict between rules 10 (3) (iii) (b) and 10 (3) (iii) (c) of these Rules. The contention of the petitioners was that there was a conflict and that the Rules were unworkable, and that the elections held under such Rules were invalid. The main question that arises for determination in these proceedings is, whether there is any conflict between rules 10 (3) (iii) (b) and 10 (3) (iii) (c) of these Rules. The contention of the petitioners was that there was a conflict and that the Rules were unworkable, and that the elections held under such Rules were invalid. Rule 10 (3) (iii) as it stood on the date of Election ran: “The Presiding Officer shall also explain to each elector at the time of issuing a ballot paper or papers- (a) the number of candidates for whom he may vote; (b) that he may place one ballot paper in the ballot box of each of the candidates for whom he wishes to vote or place more than one ballot paper or all the ballot papers in the ballot box of any particular candidate for whom he wishes to vote; (c) that where he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates than he has votes, he shall return the surplus ballot paper or ballot papers to the Presiding Officer.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that while clause (b) permits cumulative voting, clause (c) was based on the assumption, that cumulative voting was not permissible, and that a voter could give only one vote to the candidate or each of the candidates of his choice. A similar contention was accepted by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in W.P. No. 303 of 1958. (Karia Gowder v. State of Madras). The learned Judge set out the provisions of rule 10 (3) (iii) and observed: “It was pointed out that this Rule is not merely obscure but involves a contradiction. An illustration will make the matter clear. Suppose there are four seats to be filled. Each voter is given four papers. Apparently the intention of the Rule is that a voter may distribute the four papers in whatever manner he thinks fit. He may place one paper in each of four boxes, or he may place all the papers in one box, or he may place two in one and two in another, or three in one and one in another. But then, sub-clause (c) states that if he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates he shall return the surplus ballot papers to the Presiding Officer. How can the two rules co-exist? But then, sub-clause (c) states that if he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates he shall return the surplus ballot papers to the Presiding Officer. How can the two rules co-exist? The criticism that there is an inherent contradiction in the Rules appears to be correct. I presume that what it was intended to say is this. If a voter decides to use only some of his votes, that is to say, if he decides to place only some of the papers given to him in the ballot boxes then he should return the rest. But this is not what the rule actually says”. With all respect to the learned Judge, I venture to think the interpretation of clauses (b) and (c) of rule 10 (3) (iii) requires reconsideration. The learned Judge himself pointed out: "I presume that what it was intended to say is this. If a voter decides to use only some of his votes, that is to say, if he decides to place only some of the papers given to him in the ballot boxes then he should return the rest." If the only obligation cast on a voter by clause (c) was to return the unused or "surplus" ballot papers, there could be no difficulty in holding that clause (c) was quite consistent with clause (b). The learned Judge pointed out that that was not what clause (c) actually said. It has still to be considered whether on applying the rule of interpretation, that, where possible, the different statutory provisions should be so construed as to harmonise with each other, the apparent inconsistency between clauses (b) and (c) can be resolved. No doubt the decision of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., being that of a single Judge may not have the force of an authority binding on me. But differing judgment even of single Judges may lead to confusion when Subordinate Courts and Tribunals are called upon to interpret or apply these statutory provisions. It is therefore preferable to have the question considered by a Division Bench. The papers will be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for directions to post the Writ Petitions for disposal by a Division Bench. [Petitions then came on for hearing in pursuance of the above Order of Reference, before Rajamannar, C.J. and Ganapatia Pillai, J.] V. V. Raghavan and M. M. Ismail, for Petitioner. The papers will be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for directions to post the Writ Petitions for disposal by a Division Bench. [Petitions then came on for hearing in pursuance of the above Order of Reference, before Rajamannar, C.J. and Ganapatia Pillai, J.] V. V. Raghavan and M. M. Ismail, for Petitioner. P. S. Chari and P. Srinivasan, for first Respondent. The Additional Government Pleader (K. Veeraswami) on behalf of the fifth Respondent. The Order of the Court was pronounced by Rajamannar, C.J.†-The point which arises for determination in these two Writ Petitions concerns the construction of rule 10 (3) (iii) of the rules relating to the conduct of election of members to Panchayats made under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950. The petitions originally came on for hearing before Rajagopalan, J., but, as he was inclined to take a view of the relevant provision which was different from the view which had already been taken by Balakrishna Aiyar, J., in Writ Petition No. 303 of 1958 (Karia Gowder v. State of Madras) he made a reference of the case for disposal by a Division Bench. Rule 10(3) (iii) runs thus: "The Presiding Officer shall also explain to each elector at the time of issuing a ballot paper or papers- (a) the number of candidates for whom he may vote; (b) that he may place one ballot paper in the ballot box of each of the candidates for whom he wishes to vote or place more than one ballot paper or all the ballot papers in the ballot box of any particular candidate for Whom he wishes to vote; (c) that where he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates than he has votes, he shall return the surplus ballot paper or ballot papers to the Presiding Officer." Balakrishna Aiyar, J., pointed out the inconsistency amounting to a contradiction between the latter part of clause (b) and clause (c). Obviously, clause (b) confers a right on the voter to place more than one ballot paper in the ballot box of any particular candidate. The learned Judge thought that the effect of clause (c) was to prohibit this, because, it says that where a voter wishes to vote, say, only for one candidate, then he can use only one ballot paper and return the rest. The learned Judge thought that the effect of clause (c) was to prohibit this, because, it says that where a voter wishes to vote, say, only for one candidate, then he can use only one ballot paper and return the rest. The learned Judge observed: "It was pointed out that this Rule is not merely obscure but involves a contradiction. An illustration will make the matter clear. Suppose there are four seats to be filled. Each voter is given four papers. Apparently the intention of the rule is that a voter may distribute the four papers in whatever manner he thinks fit. He may place one paper in each of the four boxes, or he may place all the papers in one box, or he may place two in one and two in another, or three in one and one in another. But then, sub-clause (c) states that if he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates he shall return the surplus ballot papers to the Presiding Officer. How can the two Rules co-exist? The criticism that there is an inherent contradiction in the Rules appears to be correct. I presume that what it was intended to say is this. If a voter decides to use only some of his votes, that is to say, if he decides to place only some of the papers given to him in the ballot boxes then he should return the rest. But this is not what the rule actually says". It may, however, be mentioned that the learned Judge did not decide the petition before him on the point, because in the case before him, the election was not yet over. What exactly he would have held, it is difficult to be certain about,-whether he would have held that clause (c)-would prevail over the latter part of clause (b) or that on account of the irreconcilable inconsistency between clause (b) and clause (c), both are invalid. Rajagopalan, J., was not so much oppressed by the inconsistency as Balakrishna Aiyar, J., was. This is what he said: "If the only obligation cast on a voter by clause (c) was to return the unused or ‘surplus’ ballot papers,there should be no difficulty in holding that clause (c) was quite consistent with clause (b). The learned Judge (Balakrishna Aiyar, J.) pointed out that that was not what clause (c) actually said. This is what he said: "If the only obligation cast on a voter by clause (c) was to return the unused or ‘surplus’ ballot papers,there should be no difficulty in holding that clause (c) was quite consistent with clause (b). The learned Judge (Balakrishna Aiyar, J.) pointed out that that was not what clause (c) actually said. It has still to be considered whether on applying the rule of interpretation that, where possible, the different statutory provisions should be so construed as to harmonise with each other, the apparent inconsistency between clauses (b) and (c) can be resolved". In our opinion, the view of Rajagopalan, J., should prevail having regard to the well-established rule of interpretation of statutes that no part of the statute can be disregarded as being inconsistent with another part of the same statute unless it is impossible to reconcile them. It is true that the language of clause (c) is not quite appropriate to express the idea that if a voter wishes to use a smaller number of papers than the papers supplied to him, he shall return the surplus ballot paper or papers to the Presiding Officer. But the governing factor must be the express intention of the rule-making authority to confer on the voter a right to place more than one ballot paper or all the ballot papers in the ballot box of any particular candidate. We cannot so interpret clause (c) as in effect to render this provision nugatory, or, in other words to practically repeal that portion of clause (b). We, therefore, hold that clause (b) and clause (c) are not mutually inconsistent with each other and that clause (c) does not prevent the voter from placing more than one ballot paper or all the ballot papers with which he is supplied in the ballot box of any particular candidate for whom he wishes to vote. On this interpretation the Writ Petitions admittedly must be, and are hereby, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. It is not difficult to discover the reason for this apparent inconsistency. Originally, election to minor panchayats, such as the panchayat in question in these cases was by show of hands. On this interpretation the Writ Petitions admittedly must be, and are hereby, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. It is not difficult to discover the reason for this apparent inconsistency. Originally, election to minor panchayats, such as the panchayat in question in these cases was by show of hands. So far as major panchayats were concerned, the election was by ballot and for the purpose of the point now under consideration, the material rule runs thus: "At elections for constituencies, in which more than one seat has to be filled, an elector shall be given as many ballot papers as there are seats to be filled and the Polling Officer shall explain to the Elector: (i) the number of candidates for whom he may vote; (ii) that he may place one ballot paper in the ballot box of each of the candidates for whom he wishes to vote; (iii) that he shall not place two or more ballot papers in the same ballot box; and (iv) that where he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates than he has votes, he shall return the surplus ballot paper or ballot papers to the polling officer." The rules relating to minor panchayats were presumably framed on the model of the rules obtaining for the major panchayats. But deliberately the Government made a departure as regards the manner of voting. For the reasons which it is unnecessary to discuss, Government obviously decided to confer on the voter the right to place all the ballot papers or as many as he wishes in the ballot box of any particular candidate for whom he wishes to vote. This is clearly a departure from the rule relating to major panchayats. Having made this provision clause (c) which followed and was modelled on clause (iv) of rule 21 (2) relating so major panchayats should have been suitably amended. Instead, clause (to) of the major panchayat rules was bodily incorporated as clause (c) in the rulers relating to minor panchayats. This has caused the difficulty with which we have been faced. A little more care in drafting would have avoided uncertainty and waste of time over litigation. R.M. ----- Petitions dismissed.