Judgement CHANDURKAR, C.J. :- The appellant had filed a nomination paper for election to the office of Municipal Councillor, Mayladuthurai Municipality and another nomination paper for the office of the Chairman of the said Municipality. Both his nomination papers were, however, rejected by the Scrutiny Officer, obviously having regard to a clarification which was issued by the Director of Municipal Administration with regard to the manner in which Sec. 7-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 has to be given effect to. The rejection of these nomination papers was challenged by the petitioner-appellant in a writ petition, which, however, came to be rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that the petitioner-appellant should have exercised his option to withdraw one of his nomination papers and he having not done so, the rejection of both the nomination papers was justified. 2. In this appeal, the same contention has been raised that the Returning Officer could not have rejected both the nomination papers and that the provision under Sec. 7-A which restricts the choice of a candidate to contest an election either as a Councillor or as a Chairman, as it is framed, is unworkable. Sec.7-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the'Act'), was introduced for the first time by Act XXII of 1978. Prior to the introduction of this Section, election of the Chairman was by the elected Councillors. However, Sec. 7-A was introduced to provide for a direct election of the Chairman by the voters. Sec.7-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the'Act'), was introduced for the first time by Act XXII of 1978. Prior to the introduction of this Section, election of the Chairman was by the elected Councillors. However, Sec. 7-A was introduced to provide for a direct election of the Chairman by the voters. Sec. 7-A reads as follows : "Election of Chairman : The chairman shall be elected by the persons whose names appear in the electoral rolls relating to the Municipality from among themselves in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed; Provided that, a person who stands for election as chairman shall not be eligible to stand for election as a Councillor; Provided further, that a person who stands for election as a Councillor shall not be eligible to stand for election as chairman; Provided also that no Councillor shall be eligible to stand for election as Chairman." Apart from prescribing that the chairman shall be elected by the persons whose names appear in the electoral rolls relating to the Municipality from among themselves, the first proviso barred a person who wanted to contest the election for the office of Chairman from standing as a candidate for election as a Councillor. The second proviso provided for a reverse prohibition, namely, that a person who stood for election as a Councillor was not eligible to stand for election as a Chairman. The third proviso provided that no councillor shall be eligible to stand for election as Chairman and is consistent with the first proviso except that while the first two provisos come into operation at the time when a General Election is held, the third proviso would come into operation when after the general election the office of the Chairman of the Municipality falls vacant. 3. There is no doubt about the object which is sought to be secured by Sec. 7-A. The object is that the same person was not to be a candidate for both the elections, namely, the office of the Chairman and the office of the Councillor. 3. There is no doubt about the object which is sought to be secured by Sec. 7-A. The object is that the same person was not to be a candidate for both the elections, namely, the office of the Chairman and the office of the Councillor. Having enacted this provision, no provision was, however, made in the rules for the purpose of working out the prohibition enacted by the two provisos in Sec. 7-A. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Councils (Conduct of Election of Chairman and Councillors) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the'Rules') provided for the scrutiny of nomination. Rule I5 provided for the withdrawal of candidature. Normally under Rule 14, the Returning Officer was entitled to scrutinise both the nomination papers filed by the same candidate for the office of Councillor and for the office of Chairman. If in a given case, both the nomination papers were found to be valid, there was no provision in the Rule by which Sec. 7-A could be given effect to by restricting the election of such a person whose both the papers are found to be valid for the office of a Councillor and Chairman of the Municipality. 4. Obviously, the absence of any such provision did not prevent a particular candidate to withdraw his nomination for one of those offices. However, neither rule 14 nor rule 15 made it obligatory for the candidate to exercise his option as to the office in respect of which he desired to contest having regard to the provisions of the two provisos in Sec. 7-A. There was also nothing in the rules authorising the Returning Officer to decide as to which out of the two offices the candidate whose nomination papers for both the offices have been found to be valid should be allowed to contest. As the Rules stood a candidate was entitled to insist that he should be regarded as a validly nominated candidate for both the offices. 5. While such was the state of the Rules, the Municipal Commissioner by his letter dated 30-1-1986 asked the petitioner-appellant even before the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers to withdraw his candidature to one of the offices. He indicated in the same letter that if he failed to exercise the option, both the nomination papers would be rejected. While such was the state of the Rules, the Municipal Commissioner by his letter dated 30-1-1986 asked the petitioner-appellant even before the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers to withdraw his candidature to one of the offices. He indicated in the same letter that if he failed to exercise the option, both the nomination papers would be rejected. We have not been able to find any warrant or justification for such a communication in any rule; nor was any such justification shown before us by the learned Advocate General who appeared for the Returning Officer as well as the Election Authority namely, respondent 2. This seems to have been done in pursuance of a clarification issued by the Director of Municipal Administration. This clarification issued by the Director of Municipal Administration has no sanction in any rules. As indicated in the communication of the Municipal Commissioner, both the nomination papers came to be rejected. 6. When the appeal had come up for hearing, we wanted the learned Advocate General to explain to us how within the scope of the existing Rules, there was justification for the Returning Officer to reject the two nomination papers if otherwise they were valid. We also requested the learned Advocate General to explain to us haw in the absence of any rules, the first two provisos in Sec. 7-A could be worked out. If there was no machinery for working out of the provisions of the two provisos in Sec. 7-A, it is obvious that these two provisos would have had to be declared unworkable. 7. Faced with this situation, the learned Advocate-General asked for time to ascertain what steps could be taken to make Sec. 7-A workable. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, he has placed before us two amendments made in Rules 14 and 15 which related to the scrutiny of nominations. The Government has now amended Rules 14 and 15 by addition of sub-rule (4-A) in Rule 14 and by addition of sub-rule (1-A) in rule 15. These newly added sub-rules read as follows :- "14(4-A). If a person files nomination for the election of Chairman and Councillor of a Municipal Council, the Returning Officer shall scrutinise the nomination papers and accept the nominations, if they are otherwise in order". "15(1-A). These newly added sub-rules read as follows :- "14(4-A). If a person files nomination for the election of Chairman and Councillor of a Municipal Council, the Returning Officer shall scrutinise the nomination papers and accept the nominations, if they are otherwise in order". "15(1-A). If a person who has filed nominations for the election of Chairman and Councillor of a Municipal Council fails to withdraw either of the nomination filed for the election of the Chairman of the Municipal Council or the nomination filed for the election of the Councillor of that Municipal Council before the hour fixed for withdrawal of nominations, the Returning Officer shall, immediately after the expiry of the hour fixed for withdrawal, determine by lot the election to which such person shall contest. The Returning Officer shall include the name of such person in the list of contesting candidates for the election determined by lot and his nomination shall be deemed to have been withdrawn in respect of the other election. The lot shall be drawn in the presence of the available candidates who have filed nominations." 8. Relying on these sub-rules, the learned Advocate General has argued that by making these two sub-rules, the first two provisos in Sec.7-A can be properly worked out. According to the learned Advocate General, the effect of Rule 15(1-A) is that if the candidate whose nomination papers for election as a Councillor as well as for election as a Chairman fails to withdraw one of the two nominations, the Returning Officer will draw a lot and the candidate will be declared to be a validly nominated candidate for the office for which the lot happens to be drawn. 9. On a reading of the newly added sub-rules it appears to us that sub-rule (4-A) is really a surplusage. There is no bar any-where in Rule 14(1) to (4) which prevents the Returning Officer from scrutinising the nomination papers which are submitted to him, whether they are for the office of Councillor or for the office of the Chairman or for both the offices. What is contemplated by sub-rule (4-A) is really covered by Rule 14 even as it stood before amendment. 10. What is contemplated by sub-rule (4-A) is really covered by Rule 14 even as it stood before amendment. 10. The newly added sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 15, in our view, now adequately provides for a procedure for giving effect to the intention behind the first two provisos in Sec. 7-A. It now expressly provides that where nomination paper for election as a Councillor as well as a Chairman is found valid and if nomination for one of the officers, i.e. either the Chairman or Councillor is not withdrawn, then the Returning Officer can draw a lot for the purpose of deciding which election the person concerned should be permitted to contest. Sub-rule 15(1-A) thus now clearly achieves the object for which Sec. 7-A was enacted. Once a lot is drawn by the Returning Officer if the candidate fails to withdraw one of the two nominations referred in Sec. 7-A, then statutorily the candidate is deemed to have withdrawn his nomination for the office other than the one for which the lot happens to be drawn. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, argued before us that if the purpose behind enacting Sec. 7-A was to avoid wasteful expenditure to be incurred when the same person contests election for the two offices i.e., as a Councillor and as a Chairman, this cannot be a valid justification for the provision in Sec. 7-A because election for two or more wards at the same time is made permissible for the election as a Councillor, in the same Act. Reference is made to the provision in Sec. 43-A which permits a candidate to contest for more than one ward. Sec. 43-A of the Act provides that if any person has been elected for two or more wards, he shall, within seven days from the date of the last of such elections, intimate to the Commissioner the ward for which he chooses to serve. Under Sec. 43-A(2) in default of such intimation, the Commissioner shall determine by lot and notify the ward for which such person shall serve. The principle in S.43-A(2) to determine by lot as to which of the two offices a person would be entitled to hold has been given effect to also in Rule 15(1-A). Under Sec. 43-A(2) in default of such intimation, the Commissioner shall determine by lot and notify the ward for which such person shall serve. The principle in S.43-A(2) to determine by lot as to which of the two offices a person would be entitled to hold has been given effect to also in Rule 15(1-A). Even though there is some substance in the contention that if the object of enacting of Sec. 7-A was to avoid wasteful expenditure, then there was no justification for permitting the same person to contest for more than one ward on the same principle, it is difficult for us to see how the motive of the Legislature or the policy behind the enactment of Sec. 7-A has any relevance when the question of construction of Sec. 7-A arises. We are concerned in this appeal with the question as to whether the Scrutiny Officer was justified in rejecting both the nomination papers of the appellant even before scrutiny. We have already pointed out that if the two nomination papers were otherwise not invalid, there was no justification for the rejection of any of these nomination papers even at the stage of scrutiny, and, therefore, much less before the scrutiny itself. This, however, will not affect the fact that the Legislature in its wisdom has restricted the choice of a candidate to stand for election only to one of the two offices. That intention can now be effectuated by the method provided in Rule 15(1-A). The first two provisos in Sec. 7A are now clearly workable and since a new sub-rule 15(1-A) has now been made, there is no question of declaring the first two provisos as unworkable. 12. The overall result in this appeal is that the rejection of both the nomination papers of the appellant by the Returning Officer has to be set aside. Both the nomination papers have to be declared as valid. It is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleader before us that there is no other defect which would render any of the two nomination papers invalid. 13. We had by an interim order stayed the elections. Both the nomination papers have to be declared as valid. It is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleader before us that there is no other defect which would render any of the two nomination papers invalid. 13. We had by an interim order stayed the elections. Having regard to the framing of the new sub-rule, it now becomes necessary to give a direction to the Election authority for Tamil Nadu Municipal Council Election to fix a fresh programme of election commencing with a date for withdrawal and for the subsequent stages for the election. It is expressly made clear that there will be no fresh calling of nomination papers. 14. This appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The costs of this appeal shall be paid by respondents 2 and 3. Costs Rs. 500.