JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH J. :---Whether Subjects Committee of a `C' Class Municipal Council can consist of only one member is a short but interesting question which falls for our consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Igatpuri Municipal Council is a Class `C' Municipal Council. In the elections, which were held in December 1991, petitioners Nos. 1 to 14 and respondents Nos. 3 and 18 were elected as members of the Municipal Council. For the year 1991-92, the Standing Committee consisting of ten members and various Subjects Committees consisting of three members each were formed. As the period of the Standing Committee and the Subjects Committees expired, the Collector of Nasik in exercise of powers under section 65 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred he as `the Act') convened a special meeting of the Municipal Council on 23rd December, 1992 for the purposes of (i) determining the number of members of the Standing Committee; (ii) determining the Subjects Committee or Committees, if any, to be appointed, and the number of members of each such Committee, and if more than one such Committee are to be appointed, the Subject Committee of which the Vice-President shall be the ex officio Chairman; (iii) holding elections to the Standing Committee and the Subjects Committee or Committees; (iv) for electing the Chairman of the Subjects Committee other than that of which the Vice-President is to be the ex officio Chairman; and (v) for holding elections for the remaining members of the Standing Committee, if necessary. All the thirty Councillors attended the meeting. As regards the number of members of the Standing Committee, it was unanimously agreed that the number of members should be ten. Then came for the consideration the second subject, namely, determining the number of members of each Subjects Committee. Respondent No. 10 moved a resolution that each Subject Committee should consist of only one member. This was seconded by respondent No. 5. Petitioner No. 2 moved an amendment to this resolution that the minimum number of members of each Subjects Committee should be three. The amendment was seconded by petitioner No. 1. Thereafter the resolution as well as the amendment were put to vote and by majority of sixteen versus fourteen the original resolution recommending only one-member Subjects Committee was passed and the amendment moved by petitioner No. 1 was rejected. The amendment was seconded by petitioner No. 1. Thereafter the resolution as well as the amendment were put to vote and by majority of sixteen versus fourteen the original resolution recommending only one-member Subjects Committee was passed and the amendment moved by petitioner No. 1 was rejected. Thereafter it was resolved that there shall be in all nine Subjects Committees and that the Vice-President of the Council shall be the ex officio Chairman of the Committee called `Sweepers and Other Backward Class Welfare Committee". Then nominations were invited for elections to eight out of nine Subject Committees. As it was already decided that each subjects Committee shall have only one member and as the Vice-President was appointed as ex officio Chairman of the `Sweepers and Other Backward Class Committee', there was no question of holding elections for the said `Sweepers and Other Class Committee'. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioners, who were in minority, decided not to participate in elections to the Subjects Committees by way of protest against the resolution for having only one member Subjects Committee. Only eight nominations were invited for the membership of eight Subjects Committees and naturally they were declared to be elected as unopposed. Thereafter eight Subjects Committees' members, who have been declared to be elected as unopposed were also declared to be Chairman of the respective Subject Committees as each Subjects Committee consisted of only one member. Lastly, as far as the elections to the Standing Committee was concerned, the same was found unnecessary as the Chairman of each of the nine Subject Committee and the President of the Council constituted the ten members Standing Committee. 3. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter filed an application before the Collector of Nasik under section 308 of the Act complaining that the resolution on Subject No. 2 by which the number of members of each Subjects Committee was restricted to one was illegal. He prayed that the said resolution as well as the elections to the Subjects Committees and the Standing Committee be stayed and further prayed to the Collector to make a recommendation to the Director of Municipal Administration to quash the impugned resolution and to issue necessary directions for holding fresh elections to the various Subjects Committees and the Standing Committee. He prayed that the said resolution as well as the elections to the Subjects Committees and the Standing Committee be stayed and further prayed to the Collector to make a recommendation to the Director of Municipal Administration to quash the impugned resolution and to issue necessary directions for holding fresh elections to the various Subjects Committees and the Standing Committee. The Collector of Nasik passed a cryptic order on 2nd January, 1992 rejecting the application of petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the provisions of section 65(3) of the Act prescribed that the number of members of each Subjects Committee shall be less than five and as the number of the members of the Subjects Committee fixed by the Igatpuri Municipal Council is less than five, there is reason to interfere. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the validity of the resolutions passed by the Council as well as the order of the Collector rejecting application under section 308 of the Act. 4. First it will be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 9 provides for composition of Municipal Councils. The Councils are divided into three classes, namely, `A', `B' and `C'. Igatpuri Municipal Council, as stated above, is a `C' Class Council. The minimum number of elected Councillors of a `C' Class Council is prescribed as twenty and for every two thousand of the population above fifteen thousand one additional seat of elected Councillor is provided, but with a rider that the total number of elected Councillor cannot exceed thirty. Section 51 provides that every Council shall have a President, who shall be elected from amongst the Councillors, who are elected or deemed to be elected and section 52 provides that the term of office of the President shall be co-terminus with the term of the elected Councillors. Sections 62 to 64 contain provisions for appointment and constitution of the Standing Committee and the Subjects Committees of `A' and `B' Class Councils. As we are concerned with the `C' Class Council, it is not necessary to make detailed reference to the provisions of sections 62 and 64, but it may be mentioned that sub-section (1) of section 63 provides that the number of members of a Subjects Committee shall not be less than one-fourth or more than one-third of the total number of Councillors. Sections 65 and 66 deal with the appointment and constitution of the Standing Committee and the Subjects Committee of a `C' Class Municipal Council. It will be necessary to deal with the said provisions in detail. 5. Sub-section (1) of section 65 provides that there shall be a Standing Committee for every `C' Class Municipal Council and there may be such Subjects Committees as may be deemed necessary by the Councillors. Under sub-section (2) of section 65, the number of members of the Standing Committee cannot exceed one-third of the total number of the Councillors. The constitution of the Standing Committee, as prescribed by section 66, is as follows :- (a) the President of the Council as the Chairman; (b) the Chairman or Chairmen of the Subjects Committees as member or members; and (c) such other members elected by the Councillors from amongst them, subject to limitation that the total number of members of the Standing Committee shall not exceed one-third of the total number of Councillors. Thus the Chairman or Chairmen of the Subjects Committees constitute the Standing Committee along with the President of the Council and such other members elected by the Councillors within the permissible limit. Sub-section (3) of section 65 is reproduced as under : "If the Council decides to appoint any Subjects Committee such Committee shall consist of not more than five members, as it may determine." The abovesaid sub-section (3) of section 65 prescribes the maximum number of members of each Subjects Committee, but is silent as regards the minimum number of members of such Subjects Committees. Sub-section (4) of section 65 provides for calling a special meeting of the Council for the purpose of, (i) determining the number of members of the Standing Committee; (ii) determining the Subjects Committee or Committees, if any, to be appointed, and the number of members of each such Committee, and if more than one such Committee are to be appointed, the Subjects Committee of which the Vice-President shall be the ex officio Chairman; and (iii) holding elections to the Standing Committee and the Subjects Committee or Committees, if any, in the manner laid down in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 63. Sub-section 4(A) of section 65 provides that a person deputed by the Collector shall preside over the said meeting and sub-section 4(B) of section 65 provides for an appeal to the Regional Director against acceptance or rejection of nomination papers, Sub-section (5) of section 65 reads as follows : "If more than one Subjects Committee are to be appointed, the Chairman of the Subjects Committee, other than that of which the Vice-President is to be the ex officio Chairman, shall be elected by the members thereof, at the meeting convened under sub-section (4)". Thus, after holding the elections of the members of each Subjects Committee, a further election is required to be held to elect the Chairman of each Subjects Committee other than the Committee of which the Vice-President is to be the ex officio Chairman. Section 68 prescribes the term of office of Chairman and members of the Standing and Subjects Committees. At this stage it will be useful to deal with the provisions of section 82, which, in our opinion, give some indication about the requirement of the minimum number of members of the Subjects Committee. The provisions of section 82 reads as follows : 82. The following provisions shall apply to meeting of Committees :- (1) The ordinary meetings of the Committee shall be held once every month. The first ordinary meeting shall be held within fifteen days from the date on which the concerned Committee has been constituted and each succeeding ordinary meeting shall be held within one month from the date on which the last preceding ordinary meeting is held, on such days and at such time as the Chairman may fix. The business to be transacted at such meeting shall be restricted to the subjects allotted to the Committee concerned under section 70. (2) Upon the written request of the President or of not less than one-fourth of the members of the Committee, the Chairman shall call a special meeting of the Committee on a date not later than seven days after the receipt of such request; Provided that, in computing one fourth of the members a fraction shall be ignored; Provided further that, the business to be transacted at such meeting shall also be restricted to the subjects allotted to the Committee concerned under section 70. (3) If the Chairman of a Committee has been absent from the municipal area for a period exceeding fifteen days or if the Chairman fails to call a meeting within the period specified in Clause (2), the President or in his absence the Vice-President may call a meeting of the Committee. (4) If the Chairman, the President and the Vice-President fail to call a meeting as required by Clause (2) or (3), one third of the members of the Committee or two members, whichever is more, may call such meeting; Provided that, in computing one third of the members a fraction shall be ignored. (5) (a) A notice of every meeting specifying the date on which and the time and the place at which such meeting is to be held and the business to be transacted thereat shall be served upon each member of the Committee and shall also be posted up at the municipal office at least three clear days before the date of the meeting; (b) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (a) in any emergency, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Chairman may call a meeting of the Committee with only one day's notice served upon the members and posted up at the municipal office. (6) one-half of the members of a Committee shall form a quorum, but such number shall not be less than two : Provided that, in computing one-half of the members a fraction shall be ignored. (7) Every meeting of a Committee shall be presided over by the Chairman and in the absence of the Chairman, by one of the members of the Committee as may be chosen by the meeting to preside. (8) ... ... ... ... (9) ... ... ... ...". The aforesaid provisions of section 82 deal with the meetings of the Committees including the Subjects Committees. Under sub-section (2) of section 82, the Chairman is obliged to call the meeting of the Committee on a written request made by not less than one-fourth members of the Committee. Similarly, in the event of failure to convene a meeting of the Committee as prescribed under sub-sections (2) and (3), a meeting is required to be convened under sub-section (4) on request of one-third members of the Committee. Similarly, in the event of failure to convene a meeting of the Committee as prescribed under sub-sections (2) and (3), a meeting is required to be convened under sub-section (4) on request of one-third members of the Committee. Sub-section (6) provides that one half members of a Committee shall have a quorum, but such number shall not be less than two (emphasis supplied). In the absence of the Chairman, any one member of a Committee has chosen by other members presides over the meeting of the Committee as prescribed under sub-section (7). 6. Mr. Kankaria, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted before us that the resolution passed by the Councillors fixing the number of members of each Subjects Committee as one is wholly illegal, being contrary to the express provisions of the Act. Mr. Kankaria further submitted that the number of members of a Subjects Committee cannot be less than three and, therefore, the said resolution as well as the elections to the Standing Committee and the various Subjects Committees are liable to be declared as invalid. Mr. Kankaria also submitted that although section 65 of the Act does not expressly lay down the minimum number of members of a Subjects Committee, other provisions in the Act clearly demonstrate that the strength of members of Subjects Committee cannot be less than three. Mr. Kankaria also submitted that appointing only one member Subjects Committee will lead to absurd results and exclude completely the minority in the Council from having any representation either for the Standing Committee or the Subjects Committee. Mr. Kankaria lastly submitted that the Collector has rejected the application of petitioner No. 1 without applying his mind to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the same has been vitiated in law. On the other hand, Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 18, submitted that a Committee can be a one member Committee and, therefore, there is no illegality attached to the resolution impugned in the present petition. Mr. Thorat also submitted that although the legislature has prescribed a maximum number of members of a Subjects Committee, no restriction has been put as regards the minimum number of members and as such no fault can be found with the decision of the Council to have only one member Subjects Committees. 7. Mr. Thorat also submitted that although the legislature has prescribed a maximum number of members of a Subjects Committee, no restriction has been put as regards the minimum number of members and as such no fault can be found with the decision of the Council to have only one member Subjects Committees. 7. It is a well established principle of interpretation that a statute is to be read as a whole. Every clause of a statute is to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Thus construction is to be made of all the parts together and not of one part only by itself. Similarly, individual words are not considered in isolation, but may have their meanings determined by other words in the section in which they occur and the meaning of a section may be controlled by other individual sections in the same Act. In (Hubali Municipality v. Subba Rao)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1398, the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "The statute must be read as a whole and every provision in the Statute must be construed with reference to the context and others clauses in the statute so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute." It is no doubt true that sub-section (3) of section 65, which prescribes the maximum number of members of each Subjects Committee as five, does not specifically provide as to what should be the minimum number of members of such Committee. But, in our opinion, the other sub-sections of section 65 and the provisions of section 82 leave no manner of doubt that the Subjects Committee contemplated by section 65 cannot consist of less than three members. In the first place, sub-section (5) of section 65 contemplates that if there are more than one Subjects Committee are to be appointed, the Chairman of the Subject Committee, other than that of which the Vice-President is to be the ex officio Chairman, shall be elected by the members. If the legislature intended to have one-member Subjects Committee, the said provisions of sub-section (5) of section 65 would be rendered redundant as election of Chairman is wholly unnecessary in a one-member Committee. If the legislature intended to have one-member Subjects Committee, the said provisions of sub-section (5) of section 65 would be rendered redundant as election of Chairman is wholly unnecessary in a one-member Committee. In our opinion, the provisions of section 82 clearly demonstrate that the number of members of a Subjects Committee cannot be less than three. Sub-section (2) of the said section provides for convening a special meeting on the requisition of not less than one-fourth members of the Committee. Again sub-section (4) of the said section makes a provisions for calling a meeting at the request of one-third of the numbers of the Committee or two members, whichever is more. The provisions of sub-section (6) are most significant. It specifically provides that one half of the members of a Committee shall form a quorum, but such number shall not be less than two. This is clear demonstration of legislative intention that a Subjects Committee under section 65 cannot be a one-member Committee. If the interpretation as suggested by Mr. Thorat is to be accepted, these provisions will be completely rendered nugatory. The appointment of a one-member Subjects Committee will lead to absurd results, e.g. he will be electing himself as the Chairman of the Committee under sub-section (5) of section 65 or if the sole member fails to call a meeting or abstains himself from attending the meeting, there is no way of holding the meeting of a Subjects Committee as required by the Act. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that where the result of one of two interpretations would be to lead to absurdity, such interpretation would be avoided. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that a Chairman of a Subjects Committee automatically becomes the member of the Standing Committee under the provisions of section 66 of the Act. We agree with Mr. Kankaria that appointing one-member Subjects Committee will completely exclude the minority in the Council from having any representations on Subjects Committees or the Standing Committee. 8. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the respondents, then relied upon the Webster's New Collective Dictionary (Indian Edition) to support his submission that a Committee can be only a one-member Committee. The meaning of the word `Committee', as given by the Webster's New Collective Dictionary, reads as follows : "Committee. 8. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the respondents, then relied upon the Webster's New Collective Dictionary (Indian Edition) to support his submission that a Committee can be only a one-member Committee. The meaning of the word `Committee', as given by the Webster's New Collective Dictionary, reads as follows : "Committee. n. 1 archaic : a person to whom a charge or trust is committed 2 a: as a body of persons delegated to consider, investigate, take action on, or report on some matter; spedif: a group of fellow legislators chosen by a legislative body to give consideration to legislative matters b: a self-constituted organization for the promotion of a common object". It is not possible to apply the dictionary meaning of the word `Committee' mechanically and without reference to the relevant provisions of the Act. The appropriate dictionary meaning of words possessing variable shades of meanings has not to be arbitrarily selected and mechanically applied. Dictionary meanings, howsoever helpful in understanding general sense of the words, cannot control where the scheme of the statute considered as a whole clearly conveys a different shade of meanings. Mr. Thorat then relied upon the definition of word `Committee' given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition), which reads as follows : Committee. (1)" `Committee' is he to whom the consideration or ordering of any matter is referred either by some Court, or Consent of the Parties to whom it appertains" (Terms de la Ley). (2) "The term `committee' means an individual, or body to which others have committed or delegated a particular duty, or who have taken on themselves to perform it, in the expectation of their act being confirmed by the body they profess to represent or act for" (per Pollock C.B., Reynell v. Lewis)2, 16 L.J. Ex. 30). (3) "I observed in the argument that, according to one's ordinary idea of the meaning of the word, a `committee' consists of more persons than one. But I was not right in saying that, because that is not ex vi termini the necessary meaning of the word `committee', which simply means a person or persons to whom anything is committed" (per Kay J., (Re Scottish Petroleum Co.)3, 51 L.J. Ch. 845). See also (Re Taurine Co.)4, 25 Ch. C. 118. But I was not right in saying that, because that is not ex vi termini the necessary meaning of the word `committee', which simply means a person or persons to whom anything is committed" (per Kay J., (Re Scottish Petroleum Co.)3, 51 L.J. Ch. 845). See also (Re Taurine Co.)4, 25 Ch. C. 118. After going through the said decisions of the English Court in Reynell v. Lewis and Re Scottish Petroleum Co., we find that the aforesaid observations are made in completely different context and with respect to a different kind of controversy and the same cannot have any bearing on the interpretation of the word `Committee' in the context of the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. It is possible to construe the word `committee' to mean an individual to whom something in committed in the present case the word `committee' appropriately read in the context of the provisions of section 65 and the other relevant provisions cannot consist of less than three members. 9. The writ petition must, therefore, succeed. The resolutions passed by Igatpuri Municipal Council in the meeting dated 22nd December, 1992 are quashed and set aside. The impugned order passed by the Collector, Nasik, dated 2nd January, 1993 (Exh. `F') is also quashed and set aside. The Collector, Nasik, is directed to convene a fresh meeting of Igatpuri Municipal Council to hold the elections of the Standing Committee and the Subjects Committees within two weeks in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 65 of the Act. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. *****