JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Rule. On the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2.The petitioner had contested the Parliamentary elections held in 1991 from 39 Ahmednagar (South) Constituency. The petitioner was declared elected as Member of Parliament in the said elections. However, the election of the petitioner was challenged by one of the unsuccessful candidates namely; Shri E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil in Election Petition No. 2 of 1991 in this Court. This Court ultimately allowed the said election petition by judgment and order dated 30th March, 1993. This Court held that the petitioner was guilty of corrupt practices and accordingly on that ground his election was set-aside. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 2115 of 1993 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by its judgment and order dated 19-11-1993. However, so far as the findings of this Court regarding commission of corrupt practices by the petitioner and the resultant disqualification of the petitioner were concerned, the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. 3.Section 8-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "1951 Act") pertains to the disqualification of a member of Parliament or State Legislature on the ground of commission of corrupt practices. Sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of section 8-A of the 1951 Act provides that the case of every such member found guilty of corrupt practices by an order under section 99 of the 1951 Act shall be submitted, as soon as possible, after such order takes effect, by such authority as the Central Government may specify in this behalf, to the President for determination of the question as to whether such a member shall be disqualified and if so for what period. Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 8-A of the 1951 Act however provides that such period of disqualification shall not exceed six years in any case from the date on which the order made in relation to him under section 99 of the 1951 Act takes effect. Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 8-A of the 1951 Act however provides that such period of disqualification shall not exceed six years in any case from the date on which the order made in relation to him under section 99 of the 1951 Act takes effect. Sub-section (3) of section 8-A of 1951 Act further provides that before giving the decision on any question mentioned in sub-section (1), the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission on such question and shall act according to such opinion. 4.Pursuant to the procedure prescribed under section 8-A of the 1951 Act, the Election Commission submitted its opinion to the President of India on 16th May, 1994 after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned parties. The Election Commission recommended to the President of India that the petitioner may be disqualified for a period of four years commencing from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2115 of 1993. The opinion of the Election Commission has been annexed to the petition at Exhibit A. Accordingly, on 10th June 1994 a notification came to be issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs of the Government of India, disqualifying the petitioner for a period of four years i.e. from 10th November, 1993 to 18th November, 1997. It appears that pursuant to this decision announced by way of the Notification dated 10th June, 1994, the concerned authorities have deleted the name of the petitioner from the electoral roll of "230 - Ahmednagar (North) Assembly constituency (Village Sonai Taluka Nevasa). 5.As the period of his disqualification was expiring on 18-11-1997 the petitioner approached the District Electoral Registration Officer, the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and the Chief Electoral Officer, and the State Election Commission, Mumbai, by his representation dated 19-9-1997 and requested them that immediately on expiry of his disqualification period of four years on 18-11-1997, his name should be reinstated in the electoral roll of "230-Ahmednagar (North) Assembly Constituency (Village Sonai Taluka Nevasa") (for short hereinafter referred to as "said constituency"). The petitioner has produced the copies of the representations submitted to the respective authorities on record. By his letter dated 23-9-1997 the respondent No. 4 namely; the Collector, Ahmednagar, informed the petitioner that his representation dated 19-9-1997 received by him on 22-9-1997 was forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mumbai. The petitioner has produced the copies of the representations submitted to the respective authorities on record. By his letter dated 23-9-1997 the respondent No. 4 namely; the Collector, Ahmednagar, informed the petitioner that his representation dated 19-9-1997 received by him on 22-9-1997 was forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mumbai. By the letter dated 17-10-1997 the Under Secretary to the Election Commission of India forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, requesting him to take necessary action in the matter, under intimation to the petitioner. By another letter dated 11-11-1997, the respondent No. 3 forwarded the copies of the representations made by the petitioner to the Collector, Ahmednagar, for his necessary action. The respondent No. 3 repeated the same request by his letter dated 18-11-1997 and further called upon the Collector to submit a report to the State Government regarding the action taken by him on the representations made by the petitioner. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner made a fresh application on 24-11-1997 to the authorities again inviting their attention to the fact that his disqualification period had expired on 18-11-1997 and his name ought to be reinstated forthwith in the electoral roll of said constituency. 6.As no action was taken by the respondents and the petitioner was seeking to contest the ensuing elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Local Bodies Constituency to be held on 29-12-1997 and as the last date for filing nomination form is fixed on 11-12-1997, the petitioner approached this Court for necessary directions to the respondents so as to reinstate his name in the electoral roll of the said constituency, as was in force on that date. 7.The petition has been filed on 4-12-1997. The notices to the respondents were ordered to be issued by this Court on 5-12-1997. The Electoral Registration Officer from the office of Collector, Ahmednagar, has filed the affidavit for and on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. In the affidavit in reply the factual position as stated hereinabove is not disputed, more particularly that the disqualification of the petitioner has expired on 18-11-1997. The Electoral Registration Officer from the office of Collector, Ahmednagar, has filed the affidavit for and on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. In the affidavit in reply the factual position as stated hereinabove is not disputed, more particularly that the disqualification of the petitioner has expired on 18-11-1997. 8.The case made out by the respondents is, however, that though there is no dispute that the name of the petitioner is required to be reinstated in the electoral roll his name has been included in the provisional voters list to be finalised and effective from 1-1-1998. The dispute for our decision, therefore, falls in a narrow compass as to whether the name of the petitioner is to be reinstated in the electoral roll of the said constituency as is in force on 19-11-1997 or in the provisional voters list to be finalised and effective from 1-1-1998, as is done in the present case by the respondents. 9.Mr. Gaikwad, learned Assistant Government Pleader, invites our attention to Clause 2.2 of Chapter IV of the Hand Book for Electoral Registration Officers issued by the Election Commission of India and submits that though the name of the petitioner is required to be reinstated forthwith under section 16(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "1950 Act"), his name is liable to be included in such electoral roll only on 1-1-1998 and not on 19-11-1997. Mr. Gaikwad further invites our attention to Clause 16.3 and 17.3 of Chapter VIII of the Hand Book in support of his aforesaid submission. Mr. Gaikwad also urges before us that the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 16 of 1950 Act, if read in proper context and meaning, speaks about the inclusion of such name in the electoral roll which was in force during the period of disqualification. 10.Mr. Navander, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to section 11-A of the 1951 Act and section 16 of the 1950 Act. They are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. Representation of the People Act, 1951. "11-A. Disqualification arising out of conviction and corrupt practices. 10.Mr. Navander, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to section 11-A of the 1951 Act and section 16 of the 1950 Act. They are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. Representation of the People Act, 1951. "11-A. Disqualification arising out of conviction and corrupt practices. (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act,-- is convicted of an offence punishable under section 171-E or section 171-F of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under section 124 or section 135 or Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 136 of this Act, he shall, for a period of six years from the date of the conviction or from the date on which the order takes effect, be disqualified for voting at any election. (2) Any person disqualified by a decision of the President under sub-section (1) of section 8-A for any period shall be disqualified for the same period for voting at any election. (3) The decision of the President on a petition submitted by any person under sub-section (2) of section 8-A in respect of any disqualification for being chosen as, and for being a Member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State shall, so far as may be, apply in respect of the disqualification for voting at any election incurred by him under Clause (b) of section 11-A of this Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (40 of 1975), as if such decision were a decision were in respect of the disqualification for voting also." Representation of the People Act, 1950. "16. Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he- (a) is not a citizen of India; or (b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court; or (c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with the elections. (2) The name of any person who becomes so disqualified after registration shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll in which it is included: Provided that the name of any person struck off the electoral roll of a constituency by reason of a disqualification under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall forthwith be reinstated in that roll if such disqualification is, during the period such roll is in force, removed under any law authorizing such removal." Mr. Navander, therefore, urges before us that if section 11-A(2) of 1951 Act is read with section 16(2) of the 1950 Act, the name of the petitioner is required to be reinstated in the electoral roll of the said constituency as soon as the period of disqualification is over i.e. on 19-11-1997 and that too in the electoral roll valid and in force on that date. Mr. Navander submits that such a duty, cast on the authorities, is to be exercised by them on their own without there being any application of the petitioner for such reinstatement of his name in the electoral roll. The learned Counsel further submits that the provisions of section 16(2) of the 1950 Act are unambiguous and they are mandatory. It is his contention that the moment the period of disqualification is over, the authorities have no option left but to reinstate the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll forthwith i.e. immediately after 18-11-1997 without there being any request for inclusion and that too in the electoral roll existing and in force on that date. 11.It is well settled position in law that the provisions of a statute should be construed literally and should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. It is also well recognised that where the language is plain and admits of one thing, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. Sub-section (2) of section 16 of the 1950 Act is divided in two parts. The first part provides that the name of any such person who is disqualified shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll, whereas, the second part which is in terms of a proviso, states that the name of such a disqualified person shall be reinstated forthwith in that electoral roll, on expiry of the disqualification period. The first part provides that the name of any such person who is disqualified shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll, whereas, the second part which is in terms of a proviso, states that the name of such a disqualified person shall be reinstated forthwith in that electoral roll, on expiry of the disqualification period. 12.The petitioner has, therefore, placed reliance on the second part namely; the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 16 of the 1950 Act. The controversy is required to be decided by interpreting the said proviso read with section 11-A(2) of the 1951 Act. No doubt, the difficulties sometimes arise in construing a proviso, but it is generally found that inconsistencies can be avoided by applying the general rule that the words of proviso are not to be taken absolutely in their strict literal sense but that a proviso as of a necessity is limited in its operation to the ambit of section which it qualifies. If, however, the language of the proviso makes it clear that it was intended to have operation more extensive than that of the provision which it immediately follows it must be given such wider effect. If the proviso can be reasonably construed, the proviso even if contradicting the main provision will prevail on the principle that it speaks the last intention of the maker. 13.Mr. Gaikwad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, propounded the hypothesis that if this provision is construed in its right perspective and given its natural and ordinary meaning there is no force in the contention that the name of the petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith on expiry of the disqualification period in the electoral roll existing and valid as on that date. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the action of the respondents in reinstating the name of the petitioner in the provisional electoral roll effective from 1-1-1998 is legal and justified. 14.The instructions issued by the Election Commission of India are in the nature of administrative instructions so as to enable the authorities concerned to conduct free and fair elections and these instructions are mere guidelines. By no stretch of imagination, such instructions can be said to have over-riding effect on the provisions of law or nullify their object intended to be achieved by the Parliament. By no stretch of imagination, such instructions can be said to have over-riding effect on the provisions of law or nullify their object intended to be achieved by the Parliament. The instructions on which the learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance are, in our opinion, applicable to a first time voter or a voter whose name is missing from the voters list for any other reason than an order of disqualification in a particular electoral roll and the said guidelines do not come to the rescue of the respondent authorities in support of their contentions that their action to include the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll effective from 1-1-1998 is legal and proper. We are afraid, if the contentions of the authorities are accepted, the provisions of section 11-A(2) of the 1951 Act will be rendered redundant and by implication it shall mean that the period of disqualification is extended beyond the period of four years i.e. upto 31-12-1997. 15.The name of the petitioner came to be removed from the voters list solely on account of the order of disqualification passed by the President of India under section 8-A of the 1951 Act and he must be deemed to be reinstated in the voters list forthwith on expiry of the period of disqualification. However, in the instant case, the petitioner had so applied on 19-9-1997 before expiry of the period of disqualification and on 24-11-1997 i..e after the period of disqualification had expired. His right as a voter was taken away by an order passed under section 8-A of the 1951 Act and the same must be restored as soon as the period of disqualification came to an end i.e. on 19-11-1997. In reply to the representations made by the petitioner on 19-9-1997 as well as on 24-11-1997, it is nowhere contended by the respondents authorities that the petitioner will be required to wait till 31-12-1997 and his representations could not be considered till a fresh electoral roll is published on 1-1-1998. To suggest that the petitioner must wait till the new voters list is published for his name being included, is far-fetched and may defeat the very purpose behind section 16(2) of the 1950 Act. To suggest that the petitioner must wait till the new voters list is published for his name being included, is far-fetched and may defeat the very purpose behind section 16(2) of the 1950 Act. In the proviso, the words "shall forthwith be reinstated in that roll, if such disqualification is, during the period such roll is in force, removed under any law authorising such removal "must mean that the name of the petitioner or any person similarly placed as the petitioner must be reinstated forthwith in the electoral roll which is in force as on the date the disqualification period has expired. The emphasis, therefore, must be on the words "such roll in force". Viewed in that way, we have, no hesitation to hold that the name of the petitioner ought to have been reinstated forthwith in the electoral roll of "230 Ahmednagar (North) Assembly Constituency -Village Sonai, Taluka Newasa" which is valid and in force upto 31-12-1997. 16.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (B) and (C). The Collector, Ahmednagar, shall supply to the petitioner a copy of the electoral roll containing the name of the petitioner after reinstatement in the electoral roll of "230 Ahmednagar (North) Assembly Constituency - Village Sonai, Taluka Newasa". There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.