( 1 ) THE six petitioners are elected members of the Bellary Municipal council. Petitioners 1, 2 and 5 were contestants for election to the position of both the President and the Vice-President of the Council. Respondents 3 to 8 are also elected members of the same Municipal Council. Out of them, respondents 3, 4 and 5 were contestants for the President's position and respondents 7 and 8 for that of the Vice-President. ( 2 ) UNDER the calendar of events issued by the Election Officer dated 14/8/1970, the election was scheduled to be held on 29/8/1970. The writ petition was filed on 26/8/1970 praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting respondent 2, the Election Officer from proceeding with the election. When the writ petition was taken up for preliminary orders on 27th August, the contesting respondents took notice through counsel, and the following interim order was passed on the 28th:"the election proposed to be held on 29/8/1970 will proceed. But the result of the election shall not be published pending disposal of this writ petition. It shall abide the final orders in this WP. . . . . . . . . " ( 3 ) ON the 29th September 1970, the petitioners filed I. A. No. 1 for permission to add another prayer, namely, that Rule 7 (1) of the Mysore municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, be struck down ( 4 ) NOW that the election or voting has already been completed and rule 15 of the above Election Rules provides for a remedy by way of election petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction, nothing more need be done in this case than to dismiss the writ petition but for the fact that under I. A. 1 the petitioners have sought declaration of invalidity of one of the Election Rules, the adjudication of which question is not within the competence of the Election Tribunal, the District Judge. ( 5 ) WE propose, therefore, to examine the second prayer. ( 6 ) FOR appreciating the argument in support of this prayer, it is necessary to refer to Rules 3, 7 and 9 of the Election Rules. ( 7 ) UNDER the third rule, the Election Officer is required to publish a notice in a prescribed form appointing certain dates for the election. ( 6 ) FOR appreciating the argument in support of this prayer, it is necessary to refer to Rules 3, 7 and 9 of the Election Rules. ( 7 ) UNDER the third rule, the Election Officer is required to publish a notice in a prescribed form appointing certain dates for the election. Those dates are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) thereof, which read as follows:" (a) the last date for making nominations which will be a date not later than the eighth day after the date of publication of the notice; (b) a date for the scrutiny of nominations which shall be a date not later than the third day after the last date for making nominations; (c) the date on which the votes of the Councillors shall, if necessary, be taken which shall be a date not earlier than the seventh day after the last date for making nominations. " ( 8 ) UNDER sub-rule (1) of the seventh rule 'any candidate may withdraw his candidature by a notice in writing in Form 3 subscribed by him and delivered before 3 O'clock in the afternoon on the date immediately preceding the date fixed under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 to the election Officer or the authorised officer either by such candidate in person or by his proposer or seconder who has been authorised in this behalf in writing by such candidate'. ( 9 ) THE ninth rule dealing with meeting for recording votes requires that a notice of the date, hour and place of the meeting shall be sent to every member of the Council by registered post not less than five days before the date of meeting and that a copy of the notice shall also be affixed on the notice board of the office of the Election Officer and the notice board of the Municipal Office. ( 10 ) IT is pointed out that an election in the sense voting would become necessary only if there happens to be a contest and that whether there is going to be a contest or not cannot be decided until the time fixed for withdrawal of nomination has expired. Under sub-rule (1) of rule 7 the said time is 3 O'clock in the afternoon of the date immediately preceding the date fixed for voting under Rule 3 (1) (c ). Under sub-rule (1) of rule 7 the said time is 3 O'clock in the afternoon of the date immediately preceding the date fixed for voting under Rule 3 (1) (c ). In this situation it is pointed out that the direction under Rule 9 regarding the issue of notice of a meeting and the time fixed therefor cannot be obeyed at all. The legal basis for this argument is that there is no jurisdiction or power vested in the Election Officer to convene a meeting of the Municipal Council until it becomes necessary to hold an election and the said situation or point of time would arise only some time after 3 O'clock in the afternoon on the date immediately preceding the date fixed for election. ( 11 ) IT is therefore contended that Rule 7 (1) in the form it now exists conflicts with what is described as the general scheme fixed for the election by the Election Rules and that therefore we should either strike down that rule or make the scheme workable by substituting a date or time as the one for withdrawal in such a way as to make it possible for the Election Officer to issue a notice convening the meeting not less than five days before the date fixed for meeting under Rule 3 (1) (c ). ( 12 ) THE entire basis of this argument, as already pointed out, is that according to what is called the scheme of the Election Rules, the Election Officer has no jurisdiction or the power to convene a meeting until the time fixed for withdrawal of nomination has expired. For such an interpretation, reliance is placed on the language employed in the relevant rules which goes to show that an election is to be held only if there are more candidates than one for each of the positions, President and Vice-President. For such an interpretation, reliance is placed on the language employed in the relevant rules which goes to show that an election is to be held only if there are more candidates than one for each of the positions, President and Vice-President. ( 13 ) UNLESS such an interpretation is absolutely necessary or any other interpretation is wholly impossible in the setting of the Rules, the normal rule of harmonious interpretation must be applied as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Venkataramana Devaru v. State of mysore, AIR 1858 SC 255 where they observe that when there are two provisions of equal authority, neither of which is subject to the other, the well established rule of construction to be applied is that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be go interpreted that if possible effect could be given to both. ( 14 ) IT appears to us that such an interpretation is perfectly possible in the present case. It is seen that even at the very inception Rule 3 requires the Election Officer to fix among other dates, the date on which the votes of Councillors should if necessary be taken and prescribes the relative position of the said date with reference to other dates relevant for the election. It follows, therefore, that from the commencement the election Officer is required to make provision for the taking of votes should it become necessary. This excludes the idea of any postponement of considerations relevant to the calling of a meeting should the plurality of candidates make it necessary to take votes. The fact that a separate Rule 7 makes an independent provision for withdrawal of candidature and Rule 9 makes special provision regarding the issue of a notice convening the meeting at which votes are to be taken, does not, in our opinion, take away the clear intent of Rule 3. The fact that a separate Rule 7 makes an independent provision for withdrawal of candidature and Rule 9 makes special provision regarding the issue of a notice convening the meeting at which votes are to be taken, does not, in our opinion, take away the clear intent of Rule 3. We are clearly of the opinion that one of the factors which must be regarded as fundamental to and therefore inherent in the scheme of election contemplated by the election rules is that all important dates including the date for the meeting at which votes have to be taken should it become necessary, have to be fixed in advance, obeying provisions relating to the interval between different dates as indicated by sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. ( 15 ) WE, therefore, reject the second prayer. ( 16 ) THE first prayer, for reasons already stated, no longer survives. The law provides the petitioners with adequate remedy for redresssal of such grievances as may be available to them under the circumstances attending the election. Writ Petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .