(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 19 - women candidate -has right to contest all the seats-separate selection of woman candidate-when permissible. It is clear from clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 19 that the selected Councillors are to be selected by single transferable vote by the elected members of the new Council, subject to the condition that at least one of them shall be a woman. It is quite clear from the said clause that there is no bar to more than one woman being selected as Councillors. The condition that there should be at least one woman selected Councillor has apparently been laid down to ensure representation for women amongst the selected Councillors. It can not be construed as derogatory to their general right to be selected as Councillors. On the other hand it is meant to reserve at least one seat for them. It is obvious that the aforesaid provision contemplates that the women candidates have a right to contest all the seats of the selected Councillors and not only one seat. In construing clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 19 it must be borne in mind that the proviso to the said clause is attracted only if the Council fails to select a woman and not otherwise. [Paras 3 & 4] A general selection should be held open to both men and women candidates and if the selected candidates include a Woman no separate selection of a woman candidate is necessary. Similarly if the number of candidates including a woman is equal to or less than the number of vacancies they shall all be declared duly selected. [Para 7] (2) Municipalities (Preparations, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962 (MP) - R. 51 – is contrary to section 19 of the Act. [Para 7] (3) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M P) - S. 19 equality of votes-selection by single transferable votes-equality of votes- election by lot-picked up candidate to be excluded or elected. To decide by lot means to reach a decision by chance. Usually by putting a number of things in a receptacle, shaking them and then drawing out one or more of them. Usually the thing picked out decides the prize winner. The position may be different where out of a number of candidates we have to exclude one. To decide by lot means to reach a decision by chance. Usually by putting a number of things in a receptacle, shaking them and then drawing out one or more of them. Usually the thing picked out decides the prize winner. The position may be different where out of a number of candidates we have to exclude one. In such a case the thing picked out may decided which one has to be excluded as in the case contemplated in paragraph XVII. But where there are only two candidates and it has to be decided by lot which of them is to be successful it all depends on which manner of drawing lots is adopted. In the instant case it is not disputed that the officer drawing lots had declared in advance that if the paper bearing the name of a candidate happens to be drawn he will be declared successful. [Para 9] ORDER 1. This is a revision petition under section 26 of the M.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The general election of the Municipal Council, Vidisha, was held in January 1969. After the election of the Councillors' selection of four councillors by the elected councillors who were 18 in number was held on 20th January 1969. There were in all six candidates, namely Hridaya Mohan Jain, Non petitioner No.4, Vishwa Bandhu petitioner No. 2, Kanhaiyalal Sharma, petitioner No.1, Smt. Sheila Nigam non-petitioner No. 2, Smt. Sharda Shole non-petitioner No.5 and Bhanwarlal non-petitioner No. 3. The selection of the male and female candidates was held separately and Hridaya Mohan Jain, Kanhaiyalal Sharma and Vishwabandhu were declared selected for the male seats while Smt. Sharda Bai was declared selected for female seat. 2. The non-petitioner No. 1 Narayan Singh filed an election petition challenging the aforesaid selection of the councillors. This petition was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha. Being aggrieved there by the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 3. The main point for consideration in this case is whether the selection of councillors for male and female seats separately was in order. In this connection it is necessary to refer to section 19 of the Act which reads as under:- Section 19. Being aggrieved there by the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 3. The main point for consideration in this case is whether the selection of councillors for male and female seats separately was in order. In this connection it is necessary to refer to section 19 of the Act which reads as under:- Section 19. Council to consist of elected and selected Councillors:- (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each Council shall consist of— (a) elected Councillors, (b) Selected Councillors, in number not exceeding one-fourth of the total elected Councillors of whom at least one shall be a women-to be selected by single transferable vote by the elected members of the new Council from amongst person residing in the Municipality who are electors and not otherwise disqualified to be a Councillor by or under this Act. Provided that if the Council fails to select a woman, the State Government may, by order, direct the Council to select a woman within the period specified there in and on failure of the Council to do so, appoint a woman eligible for selection as a Councillor under the Act to fill the vacancy. (2) The State Government may make rules under this Act regulating— (i) The mode or methods of election of Councillors. (ii) the mode or method of selection by single transferable vote; and (iii) time of selection of Councillors." 3. It is clear from Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 19 that the selected Councillors are to be selected by single transferable vote by the elected members of the new Council, subject to the condition that at least one of them shall be a woman. It is quite clear from the said Clause that there is no bar to more than one woman being selected as Councillors. The condition that there should be at least one woman selected Councillor has apparently been laid down to ensure representation for women amongst the selected Councillors. It can not be construed as derogatory to their general right to be selected as Councillors. On the other hand it is meant to reserve at least one seat for them. 4. It is obvious that the aforesaid provision contemplates that the women candidates have a right to contest all the seats of the selected Councillors and not only one seat. On the other hand it is meant to reserve at least one seat for them. 4. It is obvious that the aforesaid provision contemplates that the women candidates have a right to contest all the seats of the selected Councillors and not only one seat. In construing Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 19 it must be borne in mind that the proviso to the said Clause is attracted only if the Council fails to select a woman and not other wise, it is, therefore, imperative to hold the selection of the Councillors both for man and women candidates alike in the first instance. If amongst the Councillors so selected atleast one woman candidate is returned nothing further has to be done and the selection of such Councillors would be perfectly valid. In case not a single woman candidate is returned in the selection so held the proviso to clause (b) would come into operation and the Council will be required to select a woman within the specified period failing which the State Government may appoint a woman eligible for selection as a Councillor. 5. There was, therefore no justification for treating only one seat as reserved for women candidates and three for male candidates and holding separate selection for men and women candidates. This was clearly repugnant to the aforesaid provisions in as much as the women candidates were denied the right to contest for the general seats open to male candidates. The selection was, therefore, contrary to la wand must be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the non-applicants referred to Rule 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision, and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1862. The said Rule is reproduced below for facility of reference:- "51. Selection of Councillors: - (1) If the number of candidates excepting the seat of woman is equal to or less than the number of vacancies they shall all be declared duly selected. If the number of candidates exceed the number of vacancies the meeting shall proceed to select Councillors by means of the sing1e transferable vote according to the procedure laid down in the Schedule annexed to these Rules. If the number of candidates exceed the number of vacancies the meeting shall proceed to select Councillors by means of the sing1e transferable vote according to the procedure laid down in the Schedule annexed to these Rules. (2) In the case of selection of a woman if the number of women candidates is more than one, such the meeting ;hail proceed to select a woman Councillor by means of the single transferable vote according o the procedure laid down in the Schedule. 7. To me doubt appears that the aforesaid Rule is not happly worded and is to a certain extent misleading. Sub-rule (1) lays down that if the number of candidates excepting the seat of woman is equal to or less than the number of vacancies they shall all be declared duly selected. This impliedly suggests that in the first instance a selection should be held for men candidates and the selection for the seat of woman is to be held separately as laid down in Sub-rule (2). It has already been pointed out above that the intention of the legislature is otherwise. A general selection should be held open to both men and women candidates and if the selected candidates include a woman no separate selection of a woman candidate is necessary. Similarly if the number of candidates including a woman is equal to or less than the number of vacancies they shall all be declared duly selected. The State Government may, therefore ament the Rules suitably to bring them in conformity with the Act. 8. The next point that was urged before me was that in accordance with paragraph XVII of the instructions regarding the selection of Councillors by means of a single transferable vote under Sub- Rules (1) of Rule 51 in case of equality of value of votes when the matter is to be decided by lot the paper of the candidate which is picked up is to be excluded and not declared successful. In the said paragraph it is laid down that if values of the original votes are equal, the Chairman shall decide by lot which candidate shall have his surplus distributed or be excluded. The relevant provision dealing with a case of two continuing candidates each having the same value of votes is, however dealt with in Clause (3) of paragraph XVI which reads as follows :- "XVI. The relevant provision dealing with a case of two continuing candidates each having the same value of votes is, however dealt with in Clause (3) of paragraph XVI which reads as follows :- "XVI. (1) When the number of continuing candidates is reduced to the number of vacancies remaining unfilled the continuing candidates shall be declared selected. (2) When only one vacancy remains unfilled and the value of votes of some one continuing candidate exceeds the total value of all the votes of the other continuing candidates, together with any surplus not transferred, that candidate shall be declared selected. (3) When only one vacancy remains unfilled and there are only two continuing candidates and those two candidates have each the same value of votes and no surplus remains capable of transfer, one candidate shall be declared excluded under the next succeeding paragraph and the other declared selected." Clause (3) no doubt refers to Paragraph XVII, but this only means that where there are two candidates having equal value of votes the selection out of the two has to be made by lot. 9. To decide by lot means to reach a decision by change. Usually by putting a number of things in a receptacle, shaking them and then drawing out one or more of them. Usually the thing picked out decides the prize winner. The position may be different where out of a number of candidates we have to exclude one. In such a case the thing picked out may decide which one has to be exduded as in the case contemplated in paragraph XVII. But where there are only two candidates and it has to be decided by lot which of them is to be successful, it all depends on which manner of drawing Jots is adopted. In the instant case it is not disputed that the officer drawing lots had declared in advance that if the paper bearing the name of a candidate happens to be drawn he will be declared successful. The declaration was, therefore, perfectly in order and I do not find any irregularity or illegallity in this connection. 10. No other point was pressed before me. 11. As the selection councillers held in this case is wholly vitiated on account of separate selection of men and women candidates the learned judge of the lower Court rightly set aside the selection of the candidates in question. 10. No other point was pressed before me. 11. As the selection councillers held in this case is wholly vitiated on account of separate selection of men and women candidates the learned judge of the lower Court rightly set aside the selection of the candidates in question. 12. The petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 50 if certified.