JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Shortly put, the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: The Appellant as well as the Respondent No. 1 herein contested the election to No. 7 Papu Valley Anchal Samiti from No. 80 Palen Anchal Samiti Constituency of East Kameng District, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Respondent herein being a nominee of the Indian National Congress party and the Appellant herein being an independent candidate. After the election, the Respondent herein was declared elected having secured 27 number of valid votes more than the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the result of the election, the Appellant impugned the same in an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal in terms of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001 (for short, "the Rules of2001"), the challenge to the result of the election being on the ground that under the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 2001, a propose cannot subscribe to the nomination of more than one candidate, but in the present case, the proposer (Sachung Tana) or the present Respondent had also proposed the nomination of one Smti Mama Tana as a member of 80 Palen Gram Panchayat and while the returning officer concerned rejected the nomination paper of Smti Mama Tana, he treated the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 1 herein as valid, which is untenable in law. Treating the notice of the said Election Petition as served on the present Respondent No. 1, the learned Election Tribunal proceeded with the Election Petition ex parte. In course of time, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and order, dated 16.12.2003, agreeing thereby with the contention of the election Petitioner, it set aside the election of the Respondent No. 1 herein and declared the election Petitioner as having returned uncontested as member of Anchal Samiti of the constituency aforementioned. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 16.12.2003, aforementioned the Respondent No. 1 herein, as a writ Petitioner, came before this Court by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 212/2004. By judgment and order, dated 26.3.2004, passed in the writ petition aforementioned, the learned single Judge held to the effect that no notice had been served on the writ Petitioner-Respondent herein. By judgment and order, dated 26.3.2004, passed in the writ petition aforementioned, the learned single Judge held to the effect that no notice had been served on the writ Petitioner-Respondent herein. However, instead of setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and remanding the Election Petition to the Election Tribunal, the learned single judge entered into the merit of the writ petition on account of the fact that both sides submitted before the learned single Judge to give a decision of the merit of the case irrespective of the fact as to whether the service of notice on the writ Petitioner-Respondent herein was proved or not. On merit, the learned single Judge took the view that the nomination of the writ Petitioner was valid inasmuch as the Panchayat system introduced under the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997, perceives a 3-tier system, Gram Panchayat being at the bottom of the 3-tier system, Zilla Parishad being at the top and Anchal Samiti occupying the middle tier thereof and that there is no bar, under the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the rules of 2001, for a voter of a constituency to propose the nomination of candidate for more than one of the 3-tier system of the same constituency, that is to say, there is no bar for a proposer, who has proposed the candidature of a person for membership of Anchal Samiti, of propose also the nomination of a candidate for the election to the office of member of Gram Panchayat and/or for membership of Zilla Parishad. On these considerations, the learned single Judge came to hold to the effect that the proposer of the writ Petitioner, having proposed at the same time, the nomination of a candidate for election to the said Gram Panchayat, did not violate the proviso to Rule 6(2). On the conclusion so reached, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Election Tribunal and restored the election of the writ Petitioner. Aggrieved by the conclusion so reached and the decision aforementioned delivered in Writ petition (Civil) No. 212/2004, the Appellant, who was the Respondent in the said writ petition, has impugned the same in the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.L. Yadav, appearing for the Appellant, and Mr. Aggrieved by the conclusion so reached and the decision aforementioned delivered in Writ petition (Civil) No. 212/2004, the Appellant, who was the Respondent in the said writ petition, has impugned the same in the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.L. Yadav, appearing for the Appellant, and Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. 3. Before altering into the merit of the writ appeal, it is important to bear in mind that there can be no dispute that Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997, envisages a Panachayat system, which consists of 3-tier. Gram Panchayat being at the base of the 3 tier system, Zilla Parishad being at the upper-most part of this 3-tier system and Andial Samiti occupying the middle tier. It is Rule 3 of the Rules of 2001, which empowers the State Election Commission to fix the date of poll for election. What the word Election means has been defined in Rule 2(e), which states: 2(e) "Election" in relation to election of any member of a Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad, means any person entitled to vote at that election. 4. From the definition of the word 'Election', it is clear that the election, as envisaged in Rule 3, can be for membership of Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or zilla Parishad. 5. Rule 6 deals with the presentation of a nomination paper and also with requirement of a valid nomination. Relevant portion of Rule 6 reads as follows: 6(1). On any of the dates fixed for filling nomination under Clause (a) of Rule 4, each candidate shall either in person or by his proposer deliver to the Returning Officer during the time, and at the place specified in the order under Rule 4, a nomination paper duly completed and signed by the candidate and by a voter of the constituency as proposer; (2) Any person whose name is entered in the voter list of the Constituency for which the candidate is nominated and who is not otherwise disqualified, may subscribe as proposer; Provided that he shall not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination. (3) Every nomination paper presented to the Returning Officer shall be in Form 2(A) in case of Gram Panchayat, Form 2(B) in case of anchal Samiti and Form 2(C) in case of Zilla Parishad. (3) Every nomination paper presented to the Returning Officer shall be in Form 2(A) in case of Gram Panchayat, Form 2(B) in case of anchal Samiti and Form 2(C) in case of Zilla Parishad. Provided that a failure to complete or defects in completing the declaration as to the symbol in a nomination paper in form 2(A) or 2(B) or 2(C) shall not be deemed to be a defect of substantial character within the meaning of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12. (4) Nothing in this rule shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper for election in the same Constituency. 6. From a careful reading of Rule 6, it becomes transparent that the nomination paper in reqject of Gram Panchayat is different from, and independent paper of, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad. Similarly, the From, prescribed for filling up of the nomination paper in respect of Gram Panchayat, is different from the one prescribes for Anchal Samiti and/or Zilla Parishad. 7. Coupled with the above, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 makes it clear that a candidate can file more than one nomination paper for the same constituency What the expression "same Constituency", occurring in Sub-rule (4) means, is an important question and this question brings us to the root of the question, namely, as to what the word "constituency" means, for the purpose of Rule 6? The answer to this crucial question is available in Rule 48(b), which defines "Constituency". Rule 48(b) states, "Constituency" means a Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad. 8. Thus, bearing in mind the meaning of the term "Constituency", as given in Rule 48(b), when one reverts to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6, it becomes crystal clear that "Constituency", in Sub-rule (4), means one of the three constituencies, namely, Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad and not all of them at the same time. 9. What follows from the above discussion is that under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6, a candidate can file more than one nomination paper for election to any of these three constituencies, namely. Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and/or Zilla Parishad. What logically further follows is that a person is not debarred from filing nomination paper in respect of membership of Anchal Smiti or Zilla Parishad if he has already filed nomination paper in respect of Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and/or Zilla Parishad. What logically further follows is that a person is not debarred from filing nomination paper in respect of membership of Anchal Smiti or Zilla Parishad if he has already filed nomination paper in respect of Gram Panchayat. Thus, when a candidate can file nomination paper not only for membership of Gram Panchayat as a constituency, but also for membership of Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad as two (Merent sod distinct constituencies, there can be no limitation for a voter to propose the candidature of one person for Gram Panchayat and another person for Anchal Samiti and/or Zilla Parishad. To the extent, therefore, that the learned single Judge had held, in the impugned judgment and order, that Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad form one constituency is, in our view, not correct The conclusion that we have reached is reinforced, when the Forms required to be filled up for election to the three constituencies, namely. Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad are considered together. The relevant portions of these Forms are given herein below: 10. From a bare reading of Forms 2(A), 2(B) and 2(C), it is clear that a candidate cannot give his assent to the nomination for election to Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and/or Zilla Parishad in respect of more than one Gram Panchayat constituency, Anchal Samiti Constituency and/or Zilla Parishad constituency, but nothing prohibits him from giving assent to nomination for election to Gram Panchayat fiwm a Gram Panchayat constituency, to Anchal Samiti from an Anchal samiti constituency as well as to zilla Parishad from a Zilla Parishad constituency. Similarly, a proposer can also propose the nomination for election to Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad as three different constituencies. It is in this light that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 and the proviso to Sub-rule (2) thereof need to be read. 11. Read in the light of the conclusions that we have reached, there can be no scope from further conclusion that the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 places an embargo for a person to propose more than one nomination for each of the said three constituencies, namely. Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad. 11. Read in the light of the conclusions that we have reached, there can be no scope from further conclusion that the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 places an embargo for a person to propose more than one nomination for each of the said three constituencies, namely. Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad. A Voter of a constituency cannot, however, propose the nomination of two persons for the same constituency, that is to say, a proposer cannot propose the candidature of more than one person for membership of a Zilla Parishad or for membership of an Anchal Samiti or for membership of a Gram Panchayat. 12. In view of the fact that there is no dispute before us that Sri Sachung Tana, the proposer of the present Respondent No. 1, had not proposed the candidature of any one other than the present Respondent No. 1 for election to the membership of Anchal Samiti, the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 1 herein could not have been said to be invalid or liable for rejection on the ground that the said Sachung Tana, while proposing the name of the Respondent No. 1 for Anchal Samiti, had proposed the name of Smti Mama Tana for election to Gram Panchayat. 13. Though the learned single Judge has taken the view that the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 does not bar a voter from proposing the names of two different candidates for election to two different tiers, we correct this proposition by defying that the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2001 does not bar a voter from proposing the name of a person as a candidate for the election to Anchal Samiti and another candidate for the election to Gram Panchayat treating the Anchal Smiti and the Gram Panchayat as two distinct and different constituencies for the purpose of Rule 6. Any other interpretation to the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2001 will, naturally, make the definition of the word "Constituency", occurring in Rule 48, meaningless and otiose. 14. It is the basic principle of construction of statute that the statute should by read as a whole, then, chapter by chapter, section by section and words by words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary, when their ambiguity, obscurity or inconsistency and not otherwise. 14. It is the basic principle of construction of statute that the statute should by read as a whole, then, chapter by chapter, section by section and words by words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary, when their ambiguity, obscurity or inconsistency and not otherwise. An effort must be made to give effect to all parts of the statute and unless absolutely necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered surplusage or redundant. True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what is provided by the clear language fit statute with, however, due regard to the scheme of the statute. Scope of the legislation, not the intention of the legislature, cannot be enlarged, when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words, statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. It is also well settled that a beneficent provision of legislation must be liberally construed so as to fulfil the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it. (see Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2003 SC 511 ) 15. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we have no hesitation in holding that though the conclusion of the learned single Judge that Gram Panchayat, Anchal Smiti and Zilla Parishad are three different tiers of the same constituency and that each of them constitutes the same constituency is not correct, the ultimate decision given by the learned single Judge that the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2001 does not create any bar for a voter to propose the candidature of a person for election to Gram Panchayat and, at the same time, another person for election to Anchal Samiti is correct. For the conclusion so reached, we see no reason to interfere with the decision rendered in the writ petition that the learned Election Tribunal was incorrect in setting aside the election of the present Respondent No. 1 on the ground that his proposer had also proposed the candidature of a person for election to Gram Panchayat. For the conclusion so reached, we see no reason to interfere with the decision rendered in the writ petition that the learned Election Tribunal was incorrect in setting aside the election of the present Respondent No. 1 on the ground that his proposer had also proposed the candidature of a person for election to Gram Panchayat. We may, however, hasten to add and clarify, at the cost of being repetitive, that the word "Constituency", occurring in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 shall mean, in the light of Rule 48(b), that a Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad are not one, but three different constituencies and nothing limits the rights of a voter of a voter list to propose the nomination of three different parsons for the said three distinct and different constituencies. 16. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 17. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed