JUDGMENT - Kotwal V.S.,J.- This petition raises a short question as to whether acts or omissions disqualifying a person from becoming or acting as a Councillor of a Municipal Council under section 16 read with section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (shortly stated as “the said Act”), also so disqualify the “President” who is elected as such directly by the voters of the Council and who becomes a “deemed Councillor” ex-officio on. account thereof, though not elected as a Councillor. 2. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 and respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were elected as Councillors to the Vita Municipal Council in the ejection held on 7-11-1974. Petitioner No. I was elected as President at the said election directly by all the voters of the Council under the Amended Act. 3. A contract was entered into on behalf of the Municipal Council by the Chief Officer on October I, 1975, with the Vita Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd. (shortly stated as “the said Society”) for the supply of electricity for street lights. A resolution was unanimously passed in the meeting of the Council held on July 29, 1976 ratifying the said contract. The five petitioners admittedly voted in favour of the said resolution though each one of them admittedly held share in the said Society and as such held some interest thefeip. 4. On or about August 20, 1977, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 moved the Collector of Sangli, respondent No.9 herein, making a grievance that the five petitioners incurred a disqualification under section 44(1)(b) read with section 16(1)(ii) of the said Act by voting in favour of a matter in which they had an interest and a share. They, therefore, requested that the five petitioners be declared to have become disqualified to continue as Councillors. The petitioner No. 1, the President, is alleged to have incurred the disqualification by reason of being a deemed Councillor. 5. In response to the notices, by the Collector in this behalf, the petitioners explained on June 13, 1978 how they were not so disqualified. The petitioners inter alia explained that they were merely shareholders, in the Society and did not take part in the management. 5. In response to the notices, by the Collector in this behalf, the petitioners explained on June 13, 1978 how they were not so disqualified. The petitioners inter alia explained that they were merely shareholders, in the Society and did not take part in the management. They also came out with the defence that Society was supplying electricity since long and passing of such a resolution was just a formality and entering into a contract in favour of the s.aid Society was an indispensable requirement of the residents of town Vita, the undertaking of the Society being the only source of supplying electricity for street lights. The Government was moved by the Council to require the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to take over the undertaking to avoid such contingencies in future. Petitioner No.1 raised an additional contention that the disqualifications prescribed for an elected Councillor do not apply to the President who is directly elected as such President under section 51 of the said Act and not as a Councillor and becomes only an ex-officio Councillor under section 2(7) of the said Act. 6. All these contentions were overruled by the Collector by his order dated 29-10-78. He declared all the petitioners to have become disqualified under section 44(i)(b) by virtue of having voted for the matter in which they had interest and further declared the seats to have fallen vacant under section 44(3) of the said Act. The petitioners' appeal to the State Government, respondent No. 12, was dismissed by an order dated August 14, 1980. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to this Court. At the admission stage, claim of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 was summarily rejected. Rule is granted only with regard to claim of petitioner No.1 whose case obviously stands on different footing. 7. Shri A. V. Savant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner No.1, does not dispute either that petitioner No.1 held shares in the Society or voted at the meeting for ratification of the contract with it. He, however, contends that under the amended Act, a person directly elected as the President is not elected as Councillor but is to be deemed to be such Councillor by virtue of his being the President. He, however, contends that under the amended Act, a person directly elected as the President is not elected as Councillor but is to be deemed to be such Councillor by virtue of his being the President. The Act does not prescribe any qualification or disqualification for holding the office of the President or discharging and performing its consequential functions including that of the Councillor. The acts or omission disqualifying a Councillor under section 16 of the said Act cannot, therefore, disqualify the President and consequently cannot prevent him from being deemed as such CounciJ1or. Strong reliance was placed by Shri Savant on the circumstances that (I) unlike under the pre amended Act, a person is not required to be elected as Counci]]or to become the President as also (2) on the omission of the words “President”, “ex-officio” or “deemed Councillor” in section 44 or section 16 of the said Act. He also contends that the so-called interest of the petitioners, in the sbares of the Society is too nominal, and ratification of the contract is too formal to incur the disqualification. 8. A short survey of the relevant provisions of the said Act may not be out of place at this stage. The words “Council” and “Councillor” are defined under section 2(6) of the Act and section 2(7) of the Act, while section 2(49) defines the words “total number of Councillors”. The President is deemed to be an ex-officio Councillor under section 2(7) of the said Act, in addition to the total number of Councillors elected or co-opted. Various Municipal authorities are enumerated under section 7 indicating that the President and the Council are distinct authorities. Under section 9(i) of the Act the Council is to consist of (1) a President and (2) elected or co-opted Councillors. A deemed and ex-officio CounciIlor is not separately or expressly included there in The total number of Councillors of any Council is to be determined by the Director in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 9 by reference to the class to which it belongs. Section 11 prescribes (1) the manner of preparing the voters' list and (2) the eligibility to vote. Section 15 prescribes the fundamental qualifications for a Councillor. Section 51(2) makes section 15 applicable to the candidate seeking election as President. 9. Section 11 prescribes (1) the manner of preparing the voters' list and (2) the eligibility to vote. Section 15 prescribes the fundamental qualifications for a Councillor. Section 51(2) makes section 15 applicable to the candidate seeking election as President. 9. Section 16 of the said Act enumerates the acts, omissions and circumstances which disable any candidate from becoming a Councillor. Clause (i) of section 16(1) disqualifies a person from becoming a Councillor. if, he has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any contract with or under or by or on behalf of the Council. Exceptions to this clause (i) are. however, carried out in sub-section (3) of the said section 16. The relevant clause (b) thereof provides that a person shall not be deemed to have incurred such disqualification under sub-section (1)(i) merely by having such a share or interest in a company or co-operative society, so contracting with the Council. Reading s~ction 16 (1)(i) and 16(3)(b) of the said Act together, it would be clear that the disqualification contemplated under clause (i) is made inapplicable if the interest of the person happens to be of a share or interest in a company or co-operative society, which enters into any contract with the Council. 10. However. section 44(1)(b) operates as an exception to such an exception. This section 44(1)(b) reads as follows: “44 (1). A Councillor shall be disqualified to hold office as such. if at any time during his term of office. he- *** *** *** (b) as a Councillor or as a member of any committee of the Council votes in favour of any matter in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partners any such share or interest as is described in clauses(a), (b), (c), (e) and (g) of sub-section (3), of section 16, whatever may be the value of such share or interest or in which he is professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or”. 11. This clause (b) stipulates that a Councillor shaH be disqualified if, as a Councillor or as a member of any committee of the Council, he votes in favour of any matter in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner any share or interest as described in section 16(3)(b) of the said Act. 11. This clause (b) stipulates that a Councillor shaH be disqualified if, as a Councillor or as a member of any committee of the Council, he votes in favour of any matter in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner any share or interest as described in section 16(3)(b) of the said Act. A distinction is thus made between the passive part of merely having share or interest in a company or co-operative society, having contract with the Councillor, and the active additional part of voting in favour of such a contract at the meeting of the Council. The former does not, but the latter does incur the disqualification. 12. Section provides for election of the President and Vice-President. This section 51 is amended by the Maharashtra Act No. XLVII of 1973. The President of the Council is now directly elected by persons whose names are included in the Municipal Voters' List. Before this amendment, the President and Vice-President of the Council were elected from amongst the Counci1lors who were elected or were deemed to have been elected. A person could be elected as President only if he was a Councillor. This amendment of section 51 made it necessary to amend other relevant provisions vis-a-vis the office of the President to make them accord with the new set up. 13. Then, reference to sub-sections (6)(9)(12) and (13) of section 81 also is relevant. Section 81 deals with various aspects of the meetings of the Council. Sub-section (6) enables any other Councillor to preside over a meeting in case of need while sub-section (9) provides for the quorum. sub-section (12) deals with the minutes while sub-section (13) stipulates that in a meeting convened and presided over by the Presiding Officer, the business will be carried on and decided by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting, and in the event of equal ity of votes the presiding authority shall have a right to a second or a casting vote. 14. Shri Savant's contention shall have to be examined in the light of these provisions. It is true that section 16 and section 44 provide for the disqualifications of a Councillor and not of the President. In fact, there is no section in the Act prescribing any qualification or disqualification of the President as such separately or expressly. 14. Shri Savant's contention shall have to be examined in the light of these provisions. It is true that section 16 and section 44 provide for the disqualifications of a Councillor and not of the President. In fact, there is no section in the Act prescribing any qualification or disqualification of the President as such separately or expressly. The word “Councillor”, however, shall have to be construed by reference to its definition under section 2(7) of the Act. The President is also a “Councillor” under this definition. The meaning given to this word under the legislative mandate of section 2(7) must prevail in terms of the opening sentence of the section (2) unless the context otherwise requires. Shri Savant could not show any such context of these two sections requiring departure from the plain definition. The definition requires tre President to be deem;:d to be an ex-officio Councillor. It also requires him to be treated as an additional Councillor i.e. in addition to other total number of Councillors, as defined under section 2(49). The fact that, he is elected as President and not as Councillor, or that the nature of his constituency is different from the one from which other Councillors are elected or co-opted, cannot affect the potency of the fiction of his being such Councillor. The statutory fiction requires the President to be assumed to be a Councillor for all purposes as any o~her Councillor. The disqualifications in section 16 of the Act apply therefore with equal force to the President as well. 15. This explains why no other provision prescribes any qualification or disqualification for the persons seeking or holding the office of the President. Under the fiction raised under section 2 (7), the word “Councillor” in sections 16 and 44 must be deemed to be inclusive of even the “deemed Councillor”. It was not necessary to include expressly the office of the “President” or “deemed Councillor”, as the word “Councillor” itself was found adequate enough to embrace the said office. It is difficult to believe that the Legislature' could have intended to permit any person to be elected or to hold the office of the President even when he was disqualified to become or act as Councillor under section 16 or section 44 of the Act. It is difficult to believe that the Legislature' could have intended to permit any person to be elected or to hold the office of the President even when he was disqualified to become or act as Councillor under section 16 or section 44 of the Act. The Legislature did not presumably feel it necessary to expressly refer to the office of the President in sections 16 and 44 when it had achieved the said object by raising a fiction of his also being such Councillor under section 2(7) of the Act. The contention of Shri Savant that the word “Councillor” in sections 16 and 44 does not include a “deemed Councillor” such as the President is thus devoid of substance. The act of the President of voting for the resolution amounts to the act of so voting by a Councillor even if he happens to be a deemed such Councillor and, therefore, is hit by section 16(1)(i) and is not saved by section 16(3) because of its being covered by section 44(1)(b) of the Act. 16. The fiction of the President being a deemed Councillor is not hollow and without some basis. He is empowered to discharge the function of the CouncilJor apart from his functions as President enumerated in section 58 of the Act. Section 81(9) and (13) are iJlustrative of how he has to vote at the meeting as a CouncilJor in addition to vote as President when necessary. He attends the meeting in the dual capacity of the President and the Councillor. He presides over the meeting in discharge of his Presideatial function under clause (a) of section 58(1) of the Act. He also exercises the right of “second” or “casting” vote, in the event of equatity of votes, as such President as contemplated under section 81(13) of the Act. His presence is taken into account for the purposes of the quorum under sub-section (9) of section 81 which can only be in his capacity of a Councillor. He exercises his right tot vote only as a Councillor at the first round of voting which mayor may not result in the equality of votes to require his casting second vote. The occasion to exercise second or casting vote arises only when the first round discloses equality. He exercises his right tot vote only as a Councillor at the first round of voting which mayor may not result in the equality of votes to require his casting second vote. The occasion to exercise second or casting vote arises only when the first round discloses equality. This second or casting vote on the equality of votes can be exercised by him in discharge of the functions of the President. Any other presiding authority also can exercise such a casting vote even when any other Councillor happens to preside over the meeting under sub-section (6) of section 81, due to the absence of the President and Vice-President. This is illustrative firstly of how the office of President and the deemed Councillor gets blended integral1y when he has to act as Councillor, exercising right to vote at the meeting of the Council being one such contingency. This is also illustrative of how fiction of the President being a deemed Councillor is not without some basis. 17. Shri Savant drew our attention to sections 9, 21 and some other provisions of the Act in which the word “President” is added to the word “Councillor” in contrast to the glaring omissions to that effect in the wording of sections 16 and 44 of the Act. This omission according to Shri Savant is reflective of legislative intent to exclude the President from the disqualifications contemplated thereunder. The context of sections 9 and 21 and other sections, however, would make it clear how addition of the word “President” was necessary to make the same applicable to him as, but for such additions, the provisions would not have ipso facto been applicable to him. It was thus necessary to refer to the President as constituent of the Council under section 9 as otherwise he cannot fall under any of the other categories of Councillors enumerated in the section. Similarly, a plain reading of section 21 would indicate that but for the words “including the President” no disputes' as to his election could have been raised in any election petition under section 21 of the Act. In spite of his being a deemed CounciJIor, he cannot be said to have been co-opted or elected Councillor to attract the section. 18. There are various other sections in the Act omitting any reference to the President. In spite of his being a deemed CounciJIor, he cannot be said to have been co-opted or elected Councillor to attract the section. 18. There are various other sections in the Act omitting any reference to the President. Yet, reference to the Councillor in the context implies reference to the deemed Councillor and indirectly to the President in the same manner as it is implicit in sections 16 and 44 of the Act. Thus, for instance, section 302 of the said Act prescribes that every Councillor and officer of a Council and other persons sha1l be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 24 of the Indian Penal Code. Hmvever, the omission of the word “President” is obviously innocuous, inasmuch as it is implicit that the same is covered by the term “Councillor” it cannot be gainsaid that the President cannot be said to be a public servant. Refo:rence can also be made on the same pattern to the other provisions such as sections 95 and 96 of the said Act. 19. Shri A. V. Savant then submitted that section 55 of the said Act is the only provision under which President such as the petitioner No.1 can be removed. Section 55 on the face of it relates to the removal of the Presi-dent consequent to a resolution to that effect passed by the prescribed majority at a special meeting convened on requisition. It has nothing to do with the effect of disqualification. Section 56 contemplates his ceasing to be in office consequent to his absence for a particular period.' He ceases to hold this office on his resignation also under section 53 and can also be removed by the State Government under certain contingencies. Dissolution of the Council including the office of the President in case of supersession is also contemplated by section 313 of the said Act. These different contingencies in which the President ceases to hold his office have”no bearing on the interpretation of section 16 and section 44 of the said Act. 20. Having thus taken the survey of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that section 44(1) of the Act squarely embraces the case of the petitioner No.1 notwithstanding the fact that he is elected directly as the' President and not as a Councillor. 20. Having thus taken the survey of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that section 44(1) of the Act squarely embraces the case of the petitioner No.1 notwithstanding the fact that he is elected directly as the' President and not as a Councillor. The resultant consequence is that he having voted in favour of the impugned resolution as a Councillor, in the matter of which he had an interest, he did incur the disqualification contemplated under section 44(1) of the Act. The protection afforded by section 16(3)(b) of the Act to the situation covered by section 16(1)(i) is lost due to the act of voting. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No.9 i. e. the Collector, is not open to any exception. This conclusion is inevitable on the rational and harmonious interpretation and construction of the various provisions of the Act having regard to the scheme and object thereof as also the legislative intent. Any other course would be contrary to the plain reading and would also defeat and frustrate the object and would equally disturb the harmonious coherence of the fabric. 21. Shri A. V. Savant made a faint endeavour to underestimate the implications of the impugned voting. The value of the share is c1aimed to be insignificant and the resultant interest being negligible. Holding of mere such shares along with number of villagers, without any active part in the management of the Society could not be, according to Shri A. V. Savant, any evidence of any interest of substance. It is argued that he had no option but to vote in favour of the resolution inasmuch as the said Society is the only available source of electricity supply to the town of Vita and contracts were renewed every time without any objection from anyone almost as rituals. We are unable to uphold the contention. The clear mandate contained in sections 16(1)(i), 16(3)(b) and 44(l)(b) of the Act leaves no choice once the same are attracted by. the facts admitted or proved. The wording is clear enough not to admit of any other construction. The result may be unfortunate, but is equally inevitable. 22. In the result, the rule is discharged with no order as to costs. At the request of Shri A. V. Sawant the operation of this order is suspended till 19th January 1981. Rule discharged. -----