1. Petitioner through this election petition seeks to challenge the election of Shri Tassadiq Hussain-respondent. No.4 to the Legislative Council in Biennial election held in the year 2005, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the seat reserved for a person resident of District Poonch, on the ground of his being ineligible to contest elections. 2. Reservation of a seat in the Legislative Council for a person, resident of district Poonch has been provided in Section 50 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 which reads as follows:- " 50. Composition of Legislative Council.(i) Legislative Council shall consist of thirty six members, chosen in the manner provided in the section. (2) Eleven members shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly from amongst persons who are residents of the Province of Kashmir and are not members of the Legislative Assembly. Provided that of members so elected, at least one shall be a resident of Tehsil Ladakh and at least one shall be a resident of Tehsil Kargil. (3) Eleven members shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly from amongst persons who are residents of the Province of Jammu and are not members of the Legislative Assembly. Provided that of the members so elected, at least one shall be a resident of Doda District and at least one shall be a resident of Poonch District. (4) One member shall be elected by each of the following electorates namely:- (a) the member of municipal council, town area, committees and notified area committees in the Province of Kashmir. (b) the members of municipal council, town area committees and notified area committees in the Province of Jammu. (5) Two members shall be elected by each of the following electorates, namely:- (a) the members of the Panchayats and such other local bodies in the Province of Kashmir as the "Governor may by order specify; (b) the members to the Panchayats and such other local bodies in the Province of Jammu as the "Governor may by order specify. (6) Eight members shall be nominated by the Governor not more than three of whom shall be persons belonging to any of the socially or economically backward classes in the State, and the others shall be persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters such as literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service. (6) Eight members shall be nominated by the Governor not more than three of whom shall be persons belonging to any of the socially or economically backward classes in the State, and the others shall be persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters such as literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service. (7) Elections under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote." 3. For filling up the six vacancies having fallen vacant in the membership of Legislative Council, which included the reserved vacancy for a person resident of District Poonch, the Election Commission of India initiated the election process by issuance of the notification under Section 29 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the Public Act, 1957on 24th of March 2005, whereunder 30th of March 2005 was the last date for making nominations, 31st of March 2005 for scrutiny of nomination papers and 2nd of April 2005 was fixed as the last date for withdrawal of candidatures. The polling was to be held on 11th of April 2005 and election process was to be completed on 15th of April 2005. 4. For the reserved seat for the resident of District Poonch three candidates namely Shri Mohd.Rashid Qureshi( petitioner herein) Shri Tassadiq Hussain (respondent No.4 herein) and one Shri Imtiyaz Ali Banday filed their nomination papers with the returning Officer designated by the Election Commission vide its notification dated 24th of March 2005. The petitioner was the sponsored candidate of National Conference political party, whereas other two candidates were sponsored by Peoples Democratic Party another political party of the State. The third candidate Shri Imtiyaz Ali Bandey was the covering candidate for respondent No.4.He did not contest the election and withdrew his candidature on the last date fixed for withdrawals. Thus, only petitioner and respondent No.4 were left in the fray. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch, therefore, there is no dispute of his eligibility where as respondent No.4- Tassadiq Hussain is the resident of Village Larkoti, tehsil Budhal. Kotranka district Rajouri. Thus, only petitioner and respondent No.4 were left in the fray. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch, therefore, there is no dispute of his eligibility where as respondent No.4- Tassadiq Hussain is the resident of Village Larkoti, tehsil Budhal. Kotranka district Rajouri. At the time of scrutiny of the papers the petitioner raised an objection to the candidature of the respondent No.4 before the Returning Officer on the ground that respondent No.4 being a resident of district Rajouri is not eligible to contest the election for the seat reserved for a resident of district Poonch. Returning Officer over -ruled the objection of the petitioner and accepted the nomination papers of respondent No.4 by observing as follows:- " While examining the Nomination paper of Master Tasaduq Hussain, I have received written objection against his candidature by one Mr.Mohd.Rashid Qureshi Advocate. I have examined the objections also and also heard him. The objections raised by Mr.Mohd Rashid Qureshi, Advocate were rebutted by Mr.Murtaza Khan Advocate. I have also sought clarification from the Election Commission of India vide their letter No. 322/JK-LC/2005 dated 30.3.2005 wherein they have cleared the position while stating that Poonch District referred to in Section 50 (3) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir will include District Rajouri which was part of undivided poonch District at the time of commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution. I have heard both the learned Advocates and also examined the communication of the election Commission of India. I came to the conclusion that any change/alteration in the boundaries of the said District (Poonch) by an Administrative or Statutory Order will not deprive the residents of the erstwhile poonch District of their right to such reservation as provided to them under proviso to sub section 3 of Section 50 of the constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir. Hence the nomination paper of Master Tasaduq Hussain is accepted." 6. After the acceptance of the nomination papers of the petitioner and respondent No.4 Tassadiq Hussain by the Returning Officer, both the candidates contested the election. Respondent No.4 polled 60 votes of the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State as against 28 votes cast in favour of the petitioner. After the acceptance of the nomination papers of the petitioner and respondent No.4 Tassadiq Hussain by the Returning Officer, both the candidates contested the election. Respondent No.4 polled 60 votes of the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State as against 28 votes cast in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore, defeated while respondent No.4 was declared to have been elected by the Returning Officer on the seat reserved for a resident of District Poonch, hence the present election petition of the petitioner. 7. In short the case of the petitioner is that in terms of the proviso to Sub-section 3 to Section 50 of the Constitution of J&K, reservation is for a resident of distinct Poonch, therefore, respondent No.4 who is resident of a independent district Rajouri was ineligible to contest the election. 8. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent No.4 elected candidate and of the State is that as on the date of commencement of the Constitution District Rajouri was part of district Poonch, therefore, despite the formation of district Rajouri as an independent district later it is still to be deemed part of district Poonch for the purposes of proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 50 and as such respondent No.4 is to be deemed to be a resident of district Poonch, therefore he was eligible to contest the election for the said seat. 9. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for determination:- "Whether respondent No.4 was not eligible and qualified to contest the J&K Legislative Council Bi-ennial Election 2005 against the reserve seat of district Poonch. OPP? (ii) In case of proof of issue No.1 to what relief petitioner is entitled .OPP? " 10. As issues being only question of law, none of the parties has led any evidence. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides the petitioner in person. 12. The contention of Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the crucial date for determining the eligibility is the date fixed for acceptance of the nominations papers of the candidate. The Respondent No. 4 admittedly on that date was not resident of Poonch district and, therefore, was not eligible for contesting the election for the reserved seat. 12. The contention of Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the crucial date for determining the eligibility is the date fixed for acceptance of the nominations papers of the candidate. The Respondent No. 4 admittedly on that date was not resident of Poonch district and, therefore, was not eligible for contesting the election for the reserved seat. He argues that even if it is assumed that on the date of commencement of the Constitution district Rajouri was part of district Poonch, the respondent No.4 cannot be deemed to be a resident of Poonch district after bifurcation and formation of the district Rajouri as an independent district. 13. The contention of Mr. Gupta, learned AAG and Mr. Murtaza learned counsel for respondent No. 4 is that Proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 50 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir provides for reservation of a seat for the residents of Poonch District in the upper house. The intent and idea of the framers of constitution behind such reservation was to provide a voice to the residents of Poonch district in view of their geo-political and socio-economical backwardness. Poonch, to the wisdom of framers of the Constitution, did not mean any village or the township of Poonch but constituted the entire district as it existed at the time of commencement of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which included all areas then falling under Poonch district. The change in its name, alteration of boundaries or bifurcation of the district Poonch into two districts in an attempt to accelerate the process of development and economy activity does not take away the concessions granted by the explicit provision of the Constitution. He argues that had the legislature intended to withdraw the concession to the residents of areas now falling under Rajouri district, they would have amended the Constitution itself. He submits that in the absence of such an amendment to the Constitution, reservation granted by the constitutional provision cannot be taken back by an administrative or statutory order. 14. What is the true import and scope of the expression "resident of Poonch district" used in Section 50 of the Constitution of J&K is the question involved in this case. In order to determine the controversy it would be beneficial to note the historical background behind the creation of districts of Poonch and Rajouri. 15. 14. What is the true import and scope of the expression "resident of Poonch district" used in Section 50 of the Constitution of J&K is the question involved in this case. In order to determine the controversy it would be beneficial to note the historical background behind the creation of districts of Poonch and Rajouri. 15. The official web sites of district of Poonch and Rajouri provide the following information regarding the creation of these districts. Poonch District. District Poonch which is popularly known as mini Kashmir is the smallest in area and the remotest district of Jammu and Kashmir State. It is bounded by the Actual Line of Control (ACL) from three sides. The ALC is about 103 kms. From Tarkundi in Balakote to Sawjian in Mandi Block. Poonch has witnessed many historical events and has been ruled by outsiders and locals at different junctures till it became a part of independent India. In the 6th Century A.D Chinese traveler Huoem Tsang passed through Poonch . He wrote that Poonch was famous for graphics, fine tea (Musloom) and good horses. Around 850 A., Poonch became a sovereign state when Mr. Nar, a horse trader declared himself Raja of Poonch. In 1596 A.D. Mughal King Jehangir nominated Siraj-ud-din of village Kathua as Raja of Poonch. In 1798 A.D. a Gujjar leader Rooh-ullah-Sangu became the ruler of this area. From 1819 A.D. to 1850 A.D. Poonch remained a part of Khalsa Darbar, Lahore. In 1850 A.D. Moti Singh laid foundation of Dogra Raj in Poonch. On the death of Raja Jagat Dev Singh in 1940, Abdul Qayoom Khan became administrator of Poonch under the order of Kashmir Government. Two and half tehsils of Poonch principality went under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, while as became a constituent of Rajouri-Poonch district. In 1967 for administrative convenience this district further divided into two parts, viz district Rajouri and district Poonch, Presently Poonch district consists of 178 villages, 115 Panchayats, 51 patwar Halqas , 8 Niabats, 6 Blocks, 3 Tehsils, and 1 Sub-division. Administrative Set-Up. Before partititon, district Poonch consisted of four tehsils, namely Bagh,Sadhnuti, Mendhr and Haveli. After traumetic experience of 1947 two and a half tehsils went under the illegal occupation of Pakistan while tehsil Mendhar and half of tehsil Haveli continued being a part of the country. From 1947 to 1967 district Poonch was named as Rajouri-Poonch district. Administrative Set-Up. Before partititon, district Poonch consisted of four tehsils, namely Bagh,Sadhnuti, Mendhr and Haveli. After traumetic experience of 1947 two and a half tehsils went under the illegal occupation of Pakistan while tehsil Mendhar and half of tehsil Haveli continued being a part of the country. From 1947 to 1967 district Poonch was named as Rajouri-Poonch district. In 1967, Rajouri-Poonch district was again bifurcated into two parts namely, Rajouri and Poonch districts. District Rajouri. As per `Tarikh-Rajgan-e-Rajour Noor-Ud-Din who migrated from Punjab to Rajouri revolted against Raja Amna Paul. Raja Amna Paul was killed in the revolt and Noor-Ud-Din became the Raja of Rajouri. In this way Raja Noor-Ud-Din laid foundation of Jaral Muslim rule in Rajouri in 1194 A.D. to 21st October 1846 A.D.Rajouri principality remained governed by Jaral Rajas. The renowned Rajas of this dynasty wre Raja Noor-Ud-Din(1194 A.D.), Raja Anwar Khan (1252 A.D.), Raja Sardar Khan (1289 A.D),Raja Shah -Ud-Din (1412 A.D) Raja Mast Wali Khan (1565 A.D), Raja Taj-Ud-Din (1604 A.D), Raja Anayat Ullah Khan (1648 A.D), Raja Azmat Ullah Khan (1676 A.D), Raja Aggar Ullah Khan (1808 A.D) and Raja Raheem Ullah Khan (1819 A.D), Raja Raheem Ullah Khan was the last Muslim Ruler of Rajouri who governed this principality upto 21st October, 1846. Jaral Muslim Rajas rebuilt Rajouri city during their rule. Number of Fort, Sarai, Mosque and Baradaries were constructed with the help of Mughals, on Mughal road. The area of Rajouri principality comprised proper Rajouri, Thanna, Bagla Azim Garh, Darhal, Behrote, Chingus, Nagrota and Phalyana etc. The total revenue of Rajouri was Rs.3.00 lacs in 1846. Raja Aggar Ullah Khan (1808-1819) fought bravely, first against Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1815 and then Raja Gulab Singh in 1819. These Muslim Rajas were very liberal and accommodating . Raja Azmat Ullah was having Hindu Minister of Mehta family of Rajouri. Hindu Rajputs were given preference at the time of employment in armed forces. The successive Rulers were also responsible for the proper upkeep of Mughal route from Gujarat to Kashmir, dotted by a dozen stations in between. The town also called Rampur as per the revenue documents, gained popularity during the Mughal period as the Mughal Ruler, during their movement from Delhi to Kashmir and back, used to stay at the station for some time. In 1846 Amritsar pact was signed between British Government and Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. The town also called Rampur as per the revenue documents, gained popularity during the Mughal period as the Mughal Ruler, during their movement from Delhi to Kashmir and back, used to stay at the station for some time. In 1846 Amritsar pact was signed between British Government and Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. In the light of this pact, Jammu and Kashmir State was handed over to Raja Gulab Singh and he was designated as Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. After taking the charge of Rajouri from Raja Faqir Ullah in 1846, Maharaja Gulab Singh changed the name of Rajouri to Rampur. He appointed Mian Hathu as Governor of Rajouri. Mian Hathu remained in Rajouri upto 1946 A.D. He constructed a beautiful temple in between Thanna Nallah near Rajouri City. He also built Rajouri fort at Dhannidhar village After Mian Hathu, Rajouri was converted into a Tehsil and affiliated with Bhimber District. In 1904 A.D., this Tehsil was bifurcated from Bhimber and affiliated with Reasi District. After Independence, Rajouri became part of the newly constituted Poonch-Rajouri District. On Ist January 1968, Rajouri emerged as a new District on the map of the State. Power to create a new district by altering the territories of an existing district emanates from Section 5 of the J&K Land Revenue Act,1996 (samvat) which reads as under:- "5. Powers to vary limits and alter number of Tehsils, Districts and Provinces- The Government may, by notification, vary the limits of the Tehsils, Districts and Provinces into which the territories administered by it are divided, and may, by notification, alter the number of those Tehsils, Districts and Provinces." 16. There is no dispute by any of the parties to the fact that before partition district Poonch consisted of four Tehsils namely Bagh, Sadhnuti, Mendhar and Haveli, and after the partition Tehsils namely Bagh, Sadhnuti and half tehsil of Haveli went under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. Tehsil Mendhar and Tehsil Haveli continued to be the part of the country, which constituted the district of Poonch. 17. Before the partition district was used to be called as "Wazarat" and Deputy Commissioner of the district as "Wazir Wazarat". On 7th Har 2008 Revenue Department Re-Organization Act 2008(Samvat) came to be enacted. Tehsil Mendhar and Tehsil Haveli continued to be the part of the country, which constituted the district of Poonch. 17. Before the partition district was used to be called as "Wazarat" and Deputy Commissioner of the district as "Wazir Wazarat". On 7th Har 2008 Revenue Department Re-Organization Act 2008(Samvat) came to be enacted. By this Act Land Revenue Act 1996 and certain other laws came to be amended in the following manner: - "4 (1) The enactment, rules and ordinances specified in the Schedule are amended to the extent and in the manner therein specified. (2) In any enactment or statutory rule or order for the word `Wazarat the word `district shall be substituted and the word `District so substituted shall mean `Revenue District as constituted under section 5 of the Land Revenue Act." 18. In the year 1949 Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was not there and instead J&K Constitution Act of 1996 was in place in the State. Under the said Act, instead of Chief Minister State had the Prime Minister. On 20th of August 1949 General Department of Prime Ministers Secretariat issued order No. 667-C of 1949 dated 20th of August 1949 which reads as follows:- " The present Reasi District comprising Tehsils of Reasi and Rampur-Rajouri is hereby abolished and instead a new District to be known as District Rajouri and comprising the Tehsils Rampur-Rajouri and Nowshera is, as a temporary measure, formed with headquarters at Rajouri. (ii) The Nowshera Tehsil will be reconstituted and will comprise the Nowshera Sub-division and liberated areas of Mirpur District. (iii) The Tehsil of Reasi with the exception of 8 villages specified in Appendix B to this Order is included in District Udhampur. (iv) The 8 villages of Reasi Tehsil referred to n Appendix B are transferred and included in Tehsil Ramban of Doda District. (v) The Gazetted, non- gazetted and the menial establishment of district Reasi is transferred to, alongwith the existing personnel, and will comprise the gazetted non-gazetted and menial staff of, the newly created Rajouri District. (vi) The Tehsils at Beripatan and Chhamb and the Niabat at Thana created under Cabinet Order No. 205-C of 1948 are dissolved and the staff and fluctuating grants provided for the two tehsils of Beripatan and Chhamb are reduced. (vi) The Tehsils at Beripatan and Chhamb and the Niabat at Thana created under Cabinet Order No. 205-C of 1948 are dissolved and the staff and fluctuating grants provided for the two tehsils of Beripatan and Chhamb are reduced. (vii) A new Sub-division is created at Chhamb and the staff and fluctuating grants provided for Thana Niabat are transferred to the Niabat Chhamb. (viii) The staff for Nowshera Tehsil and Niabats at Nowshera and Chinges will continue as heretofore. (ix) The Notification forming an annexure to this order be published in Jammu and Kashmir Government Gazette. By order of the Cabinet. Sd/- S.M.Abdullah, Prime Minister." 19. Thus by this Order it was decided that the then existing Reasi district was to be abolished and new district comprising of Tehsils Rampur-Rajouri and Nowshera to be formed with headquarter at Rajouri. It may be pointed out here that Tehsil Rampur-Rajouri is the present Tehsil of Rajouri and at that time was used to be called as Rampur-Rajouri. Pursuant to the afore- quoted Order No.667-C of 1949 dated 20th of August 1949, the following notification was published in the Government Gazette. "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996, the Government are pleased to order that:- 1. the liberated area of Mirpur be excluded from the district Mirpur; 2. the present Sub-Division of Nowshera be excluded from Bhimber tehsil and extended by the addition of the liberated area of Mirpur District and reconstituted into a new tehsil t be known as Nowshera; 3. the tehsil of Rajouri be excluded from Reasi; 4. a new district to be known as district Rajouri with headquarters at Rajouori be formed of the tehsil of Rajouri and the reconstituted tehsil of Nowshera; 5. tehsil Reasi excluding the 8 villages as per appendix B to this order be included in the district of Udhampur, and 6. the 8 villages of Reasi tehsil, vide appendix B, to this order, be included in the tehsil of Ramban of Doda District." 20. Under the aforesaid notification a new district to be known as district Rajouri with headquarters at Rajouri came to be formed. the 8 villages of Reasi tehsil, vide appendix B, to this order, be included in the tehsil of Ramban of Doda District." 20. Under the aforesaid notification a new district to be known as district Rajouri with headquarters at Rajouri came to be formed. Then on 11th of December 1950, Cabinet Order No. 1451-C of 1950 came to be issued which reads as follows:- @TBLCEN = "PRIME MINISTERS SECRETARIAT @TBLCEN = (General Department) @TBLCEN = Order o. 1451-C of 1950 @TBLCEN = 11th December 1950 It is ordered that the Headquarters of District Magistrate and Wazir Rajouri ad poonch and Superintendent of police, Rajouri be located at Poonch and that of Assistant Superintendent of Police at Rajouri. By orer of the Cabinet. S.M.Abdullah, Prime Minister." 21. By the aforesaid order it appears that though district Rajouri under Section 5 of the land Revenue Act stood constituted as independent district, but headquarter of District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner was located at Poonch which was also the headquarter of District Poonch. The district Rajouri thus for administrative and revenue purposes was administrated by District Administration Headquartered at District Poonch. 22. Since there was no separate and independent district administration provided for district Rajouri, and district Rajouri as well as district Poonch continued to be administrated by joint district administration from Poonch, it appears that both the districts for the purposes of administration came to be referred as one district namely Rajouri -Poonch District. No Govt. order or notification has been brought to my notice by any of the parties, to show that one district namely Rajouri -Poonch district was ever constituted. This position continued up to the year 1967. By then the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir 1957 had came into force w.e.f. 26th of January 1957. General Department of the State issued the Govt. Order No. 137-C of 1967 dated 30th of September 1967 which reads as follows:- " General Department:- Government Order No. 13-C of 1967 dated 30th of September 1967. -- In the interest of revenue and law and order it is hereby ordered that the present Poonch District be split into two Districts as indicated below:- (a) Poonch District:- Comprising of Haveli and Mendhar Tehsils with head-quarters at poonch; and (b) Rajouri District:- Comprising of Rajouri and Nowshera Tehsils with head-quarters at Rajouri. -- In the interest of revenue and law and order it is hereby ordered that the present Poonch District be split into two Districts as indicated below:- (a) Poonch District:- Comprising of Haveli and Mendhar Tehsils with head-quarters at poonch; and (b) Rajouri District:- Comprising of Rajouri and Nowshera Tehsils with head-quarters at Rajouri. Tehsils Rajouri and Nowshera excluded from the Poonch-Rajouri district and constituted into a separate district known as District Rajouri." 23. Pursuant to the aforesaid Govt. Order, Revenue Department of the State issued notification SRO 444 dated 21st of October 1967 in the following terms:- " In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act Samvat 1996, the Government hereby direct that territorial limits of tehsils of Rajouri and Nowshera shall be excluded from the existing Poonch-Rajouri District and shall constitute a separate District to be known as "District Rajouri". 24. Thus by issuance of the aforesaid notification in terms of Section 5 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, the existing Poonch-Rajouri districts were split and bifurcated into two independent districts i.e. district Poonch and district Rajouri. 25. It seems that the Revenue Department while issuing SRO 444 dated 21st of October 1967 did not take note of the Cabinet Order No. 667 of 1949 dated 20th of August 1949, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, district Rajouri consisting of Tehsils Rajouri and Nowshera had already been constituted and though no fresh notification under Section 5 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, for creation of the district Rajouri as an independent district was required, yet the same was issued again. 26. Rajouri district, therefore, was never part of Poonch district either before or after the commencement of the Constitution and therefore, a resident of district Rajouri cannot and could not be in any manner deemed to be a resident of Poonch district. 27. As in terms of Section 50 of the Constitution the reservation has been made for a resident of Poonch district, a person who is resident of Rajouri district and not a resident of Poonch district would not be qualified for contesting the election for the seat reserved for a resident of Poonch district. 27. As in terms of Section 50 of the Constitution the reservation has been made for a resident of Poonch district, a person who is resident of Rajouri district and not a resident of Poonch district would not be qualified for contesting the election for the seat reserved for a resident of Poonch district. The returning officer for accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.4 proceeded on the assumption that as on 26.1.1957 the date of commencement of the Constitution district Rajouri was part of Poonch district, therefore, despite its separation from Poonch district and its becoming an independent district a resident of district Rajouri could be deemed to be a resident of Poonch district for the purposes of Section 50 of the Constitution. The assumption being factually incorrect therefore, a resident of District Rajouri could not be validly deemed to be resident of Poonch district. 28. Even otherwise if it is assumed that at the time of commencement of the Constitution district Rajouri was part of district Poonch in my view a resident of district Rajouri cannot be deemed to be a resident of district Poonch after the district Rajouri became an independent district. 29. Section 50 of the Constitution has used the words `Poonch district without defining anywhere its territorial limits. 30. Section 158 of the Constitution though provides that unless the context otherwise requires the General clauses Act, Samvat 1997, shall apply for the interpretation of this Constitution in the manner it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the State Legislature, but in General clauses Act also expression "Poonch District" has not been defined. The absence of the definition of the "district Poonch" in the Constitution is suggestive of the fact that framers of the Constitution did not intend in their wisdom to provide reservation for all times to come for the residents of district Poonch as it existed at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Had they intended to make such reservation perpetually for the residents who were residing in the territories then falling in the district Poonch they would have defined its territories as well. 31. In the absence of such definition the import of the expression "Poonch district" is to be understood in its natural, ordinary or popular meaning. Ordinarily, popularly and in terms of the provisions of Revenue Department Re-organization 2008 (Supra) "District" would mean the revenue-administrative district. 31. In the absence of such definition the import of the expression "Poonch district" is to be understood in its natural, ordinary or popular meaning. Ordinarily, popularly and in terms of the provisions of Revenue Department Re-organization 2008 (Supra) "District" would mean the revenue-administrative district. In Maheshwri Fish Seed Farm Vs. T.N. Electricity Board and another 2004(4) SCC 705, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:- " It is settled rule of interpretation that words not defined in a statute are to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. According to Justice Frankfurter, " After all, legislation, when not expressed in technical terms, is addressed to common run of men, and is, therefore, to be understood according to sense of the thing, as the ordinary man hs a right to rely on ordinary words addressed."(Wilma E.Addison V. Holly Hill Fruit Products, US at p. 618.) In determining, therefore, whether a particular import is included within the ordinary meaning of a given word, one may have regard to the answer which every one conversant with the word and the subject-matter of statute and to whom the legislation is addressed, will give if the problem were put to him. (Justice G.P.Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation,9th Edn. 2004,p. 95.)" In Dr.Ajay Pradhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors AIR 1988 SC 1875 it was observed:- " The whole controversy turns on the purport and effect of R.10 of the Rules prescribing the manner in which seats available in any particular year are to be filed, and is in these terms: " 10. The seats available in any particular year will be filled up in that year. No candidates will be admitted against the seats remaining vacant from previous year." We must interpret R.10 by the written text. If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full effect. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous on and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction. Where the language is explicit its consequences are for parliament , and not for the Courts, to consider. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous on and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction. Where the language is explicit its consequences are for parliament , and not for the Courts, to consider. "Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit", said Viscount Simon in King Emperor v. Benori Lal Sarma, 72 Ind App.57 at p.70: (AIR 1945 PC 48 at .53),"We must give effect to it whatever may be the consequences for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature." We do not see why the same rule of construction should not apply t the Rules framed by the State Governments under Art. 162 of the Constitution." 32. The wording of Sub-section 3 of Section 50 of the Constitution is absolutely clear and unambiguous. The reservation provided thereby is for a resident of Poonch district, the Poonch district construed in the ordinary sense would mean revenue district of Poonch as it was existing on the relevant date. Therefore, recourse to different principles of interpretations for understanding as to what was in the mind of the framers of the Constitution while enacting the provision, is not needed to be resorted to. Therefore, for being eligible to contest election for the seat reserved a candidate has to be a resident of revenue district of Poonch on the date of election. Admittedly, the respondent No.4 was not resident of revenue district of Poonch as it was on the date of election it is held that he was not qualified to contest the election. 33. Under Section 108(1) clause (a) J&K Representation of People Act, election of such a candidate who was not qualified to contest can be declared void. It reads:- "108. 33. Under Section 108(1) clause (a) J&K Representation of People Act, election of such a candidate who was not qualified to contest can be declared void. It reads:- "108. Grounds for declaring election to be void:- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion-- (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution of this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected, or (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected; @L3 = (i) @L4 = by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or @L3 = (ii) @L4 = by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent; or @L3 = (iii) @L4 = by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void; or @L3 = (iv) @L4 = by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or this Act, or of any rules or orders made under this Act; @L4 = the High court shall declare the election of the returning candidate to be void. (2) If, in the opinion of the High Court a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice by the high Court is satisfied- (a) that no-such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the candidate or his election agent; (b) Omitted. (c) That the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election; and (d) That in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents; then the High Court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." 34. As already said the respondent No.4 has been held to be not legally qualified to contest election, therefore, his election to the legislative council on the seat reserved for a resident of Poonch district is declared to be void. The petitioner is also claiming a declaration that he be declared as elected on the said reserved seat. 35. Undisputedly, there were only two candidates the petitioner and respondent No.4 in fray. The election of respondent No.4 has been found void on account of his not being qualified to contest the election. The respondent No.4 had obtained 60 votes whereas the petitioner got 28 votes only in the election. Can the petitioner be declared elected? 36. Similar question arose for consideration before Supreme Court in case Vishwanatha Reddy Vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and ors AIR 1969 SC 604. In that case one Vishwanatha Reddy was declared elected to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yadgiri constituency at the poll held in February 1967. Nadgouda who was a contesting candidate filed a petition before the High Court of Mysore for an order setting aside the election of Reddy, on the ground that Reddy was disqualified from standing as a candidate for election and for an order declaring that he -Nadgouda be declared elected. The High Court rejected the petition. In appeal Supreme Court held that at the date of nomination Reddy was disqualified from standing as a candidate and passed an order on July 19, 1968 that - " ....the appeal is therefore allowed, the election of the first respondent is declared void. In this view of the matter the votes cast in favour of the first respondent be treated as thrown away. As there was no other contesting candidate we declare the appellant (election petitioner) elected to the seat from the Yadgiri constituency." 37. Against the aforesaid order Reddy applied for review of the judgment. The Supreme Court granted review of the judgment by order dated 7th of August 1968. Against the order, dated 27th of August 1968 an appeal was taken. Their Lordships in appeal held as follows:- "But in our judgment the rule which has prevailed in the British Courts for a long time has no application in our country. Section 53 of the Representation of the People Act renders a poll necessary only if there are more candidates contesting the election than the number of seats contested. Their Lordships in appeal held as follows:- "But in our judgment the rule which has prevailed in the British Courts for a long time has no application in our country. Section 53 of the Representation of the People Act renders a poll necessary only if there are more candidates contesting the election than the number of seats contested. If the number of candidates validly nominated is equal to the number of seats to be filled, no poll is necessary. Where by an erroneous order of the Returning Officer poll is held which, but for that order, was not necessary, the Court would be justified in declaring those contesting candidates elected, who, but for the order, would have been declared elected. The rule enunciated by the Courts in the United Kingdom has only the merit of antiquity. But the rule cannot be extended to the trial of disputes under our election law, for it is not consistent with out statute law, and in any case the conditions prevailing in our country do not justify the application of that rule. If the rule is applied in our country, the provisions of Section 84 read with Sec.101 (a) would practically be nugatory. Apart from the immense cost of intimating each voter in the vast electorate in the constituencies the rule that a defeated candidate may be declared elected only if he pleads and proves that the voters had notice of the disqualification would render the exception in the context of prevailing illiteracy and ignorance of large sections of the electorate in our country, a dead letter. A very large percentage of the electorate in our country is, unfortunately illiterate and sections thereof not infrequently speak a language different from the language of the Majority. It would be well-nigh impossible to give information of the disqualification of a candidate in a medium which the illiterate electors understand. We are again unable to see any logic in the assumption that votes cast in favour of a person who is regarded by the returning officer as validly nominated but who is in truth disqualified, could still be treated as valid votes, for the purposes of determining whether a fresh election should be held. We are again unable to see any logic in the assumption that votes cast in favour of a person who is regarded by the returning officer as validly nominated but who is in truth disqualified, could still be treated as valid votes, for the purposes of determining whether a fresh election should be held. When there are only two contesting candidates, and one of them is under a statutory disqualification, votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidates may be regarded as thrown away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the disqualification. This is not to say that where there are more than two candidates in the field for a single seat, and one along is disqualified, on proof of disqualification all the votes cast in his favour will be discarded and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes will be declared elected. In such a case, question of notice to the voters may assume significance, for the voters may not, if aware of the disqualification have voted for the disqualified candidate." On the aforesaid reasoning, Their Lordships restored the order dated July 19,1968 (Supra). 38. In the present case also, there were only two candidates in the fray. The votes which have been received by the respondent No.4 whose election has been held to be void are to be treated as thrown away and petitioner has to be declared elected to the seat reserved for a resident of Poonch district to the Legislative Council of the State Legislature. 39. This election petition is allowed and election of respondent No.4 Shri Tassadiq Hussain to the Legislative Council of the State Legislature is declared to be void and in his place petitioner Shri Mohd. Rashid Qureshi Advocate is declared as elected. Copy of this order shall go to the Election Commission of India and Chairman of the Legislative Council for appropriate action.