JUDGMENT : C.S. Sudha, J. The issue involved in these appeals is the interpretation of Clause 15 of Ext.P1 Kannur University, Byelaws of the Affiliated College/University Campus Students' Union. It would be apposite to refer to Clauses 6, 7 and 15 of Ext.P1 which reads thus - “6. The Union Council (a) The Union shall have a Union Council comprising the following office-bearers. (i) The President of the Union (The Principal of the College/Director/ Co-Ordinator of the Campus-Ex-officio) (ii) The Chairman (iii) The Vice-Chairman (iv) The Secretary (v) The Joint Secretary (vi) The Councillor/Councillors to the University Union (vii) The Secretary, Fine Arts (viii) The Chief Student Editor of the College Magazine (ix) The General Captain of Sports and Games (x) The Staff-Advisor nominated by the President in consultation with Executive Committee (xi) The Secretaries of the Various Associations. (xii) One representative each of I D.C. II D.C and III D.C. In professional colleges one representative for every class (Year-wise) i.e. one for First Year Class, one for Second Year Class etc. (xiii) One representative for all P.G. Students. (b) The offices of the Vice-Chairman and Joint Secretary in mixed colleges shall be reserved for lady students. (a) There shall be an executive committee for the Union with the following office bearers: (c) The number of University Union Councillors shall be one in colleges having student strength up to 800 and two in colleges where the student strength is more than 800. (d) The Officers ii to ix given in sub-section (a) above shall be filled by election by all students of the College and the offices xi to xiii by-election by the students of the particular association or class as the case may be. 7. The Union Executive Committee (i) The President of the Union (ii) The Chairman (iii) The Vice-Chairman (iv) The Secretary (v) The Joint Secretary (vi) The University Union Councillor/Councillors. (vii) The Student Editor (viii) The Secretary Fine Arts (ix) The General Captain for Sports & Games. (x) Three members elected by the Union Council from among themselves except in Training Colleges. (xi) The Staff advisor. (b) The Secretary of the Union shall act as the Secretary of the Union Executive Committee.” xxx xxx xxx “15. The Union Council and the Executive Committee shall take decisions by simple majority. (x) Three members elected by the Union Council from among themselves except in Training Colleges. (xi) The Staff advisor. (b) The Secretary of the Union shall act as the Secretary of the Union Executive Committee.” xxx xxx xxx “15. The Union Council and the Executive Committee shall take decisions by simple majority. In case of the tie, the Chairman will have a casting vote in addition to his normal vote. The quorum for the meeting shall be one-third of the total members.” (Emphasis supplied) 2. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition. The word used in Clause 15 is 'decisions'. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, who are respondents 3 to 8 in the writ, the term 'decisions' means and includes matters relating to ‘election’ too and so the Chairman does have a casting vote, when a tie occurs in an election. 3. As per Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition, the terms 'decision' and 'election' means - “Decision – A judicial or agency determination after consideration of the facts and the law; especially, a ruling, order, or judgment pronounced by a court when considering or disposing of a case.” “Election – 1. The exercise of a choice; especially, the act of choosing from several possible rights or remedies in a way that precludes the use of other rights or remedies. 2. The doctrine by which a person is compelled to choose between accepting a benefit under a legal instrument and retaining some property right to which the person is already entitled; an obligation imposed on a party to choose between alternative rights or claims, so that the party is entitled to enjoy one. 3. The process of selecting a person to occupy an office (usually a public office), membership, award, or other title or status.” Therefore, the argument that the term 'decision' means and includes matters relating to ‘election’ also does not seem to be correct. 4. Admittedly, in the case on hand, election to the college Union Council was held on 29/09/2023. The members of the Union Council took oath on 03/10/2023 and assumed office. According to the petitioners, in the election held to the executive committee on 27/10/2023, the petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 got 12 votes each. 4. Admittedly, in the case on hand, election to the college Union Council was held on 29/09/2023. The members of the Union Council took oath on 03/10/2023 and assumed office. According to the petitioners, in the election held to the executive committee on 27/10/2023, the petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 got 12 votes each. Then the fifth respondent, namely, the Chairman of the college union, apart from her normal vote exercised a casting vote in favour of respondents 6 to 8. Thus respondents 6 to 8 were declared elected to the Union Executive Committee by the fourth respondent/Principal of the college. The exercise of casting vote as per Clause 15 of Ext.P1 by the fifth respondent is improper and illegal and so the University Union Councilor on behalf of the petitioners filed Ext.P3 complaint dated 27/10/2023 before the second respondent/Director of Student Services (DSS). However, neither the first respondent Kannur University nor the second respondent DSS took any decision on the same. 4.1. Respondents 5 to 8, the appellants in W.A.No.102/2024, contended that after the elected representatives to the Union Council took oath on 03/10/2023, as was the practice being followed in the college of electing the three member representatives to the executive committee on the date of the swearing itself, a meeting of the Union Council was held on the same day. The 24 elected members cast their vote. There was a tie. The election of the three representatives could not proceed further as the second respondent DSS instructed the Returning Officer to defer further proceedings in the election. The third respondent Principal, being the President of the union, sought the opinion of the University as to the manner in which the election was to be proceeded with in the event of a tie by sending Ext.R5(a) communication on 03/10/2023 itself. There was no response from the University. Another e-mail, namely, Ext.R5(b) dated 04/10/2023 was sent by the Principal to the University seeking clarification. On 10/10/2023, the Principal received Ext.R5(c) communication from the DSS whereby it was informed that the Vice Chancellor of the University had directed the conduct of election of the three member representatives to the executive committee from among the 24 members of the Union Council. As the query raised by the Principal had not been answered by the University, another e-mail dated 13/10/2023, that is, Ext.R5(d) was sent to the University. As the query raised by the Principal had not been answered by the University, another e-mail dated 13/10/2023, that is, Ext.R5(d) was sent to the University. However, no reply was received to the same also. Hence the Principal being the President of the college Union Council, on 27/10/2023 chaired a meeting to elect the three members to the executive committee. The petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 were the candidates for the three-member executive committee. The candidates secured 12 votes each. In the said scenario the fifth respondent, the Chairman of the Union Council, in accordance with the authority granted under Clause 15 of Ext.P1 exercised her casting vote to decide in favour of respondents 6 to 8. Accordingly, respondents 6 to 8 were declared as elected. 4.2. Respondents 3 and 4, the Principal of the college and the Returning officer, the appellants in W.A.No.112/2024, contended that pursuant to the election to the college union, the elected representatives took oath on 03/10/2023. The college issued Ext.R3(a) notice declaring election to the union executive on 03/10/2023 as was the practice being followed in the college. When there was a tie in the election process, some outsiders from SFI along with a group of students intervened and blocked the election process. The college authorities informed the elected representatives regarding Clause 15 of Ext.P1. However, the persons who had come from outside were not ready to permit the proceedings to go on and all the elected representatives from SFI including the petitioners left the meeting. 4.3. The first respondent University filed a statement to the effect that Clause 15 of Ext.P1 is applicable only after the executive committee is formed. If after the executive committee is formed and then a tie occurs in passing a resolution or in taking a decision, the Chairman can exercise his casting vote. Casting vote cannot be used for electing a member. 5. It was submitted by the contesting respondents, that is respondents 3 to 8 that the learned Single Judge could not have ordered to resolve the issue by draw of lots as no such provision is available in Ext.P1 byelaw, whereas Clause 15 clearly provides the procedure to be adopted in the case of a tie. 5. It was submitted by the contesting respondents, that is respondents 3 to 8 that the learned Single Judge could not have ordered to resolve the issue by draw of lots as no such provision is available in Ext.P1 byelaw, whereas Clause 15 clearly provides the procedure to be adopted in the case of a tie. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent University as well as the petitioners that exercising the prerogative of a casting vote is an unheard-of practice in elections. Clause 15 cannot be applied to elections. When a Special law or a byelaw is silent on a particular aspect, then resort must be made to the general rules of election. Reference was made to Section 65 of the Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 135 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994; Section 79 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as also under Rule 34A(p) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 to substantiate the point. In reply it was submitted on behalf of the contesting respondents by referring to Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (the LS Rules) and Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (the RS Rules), that provisions for exercising a casting vote has been provided for the authorities concerned in case of a tie and so the argument that such practice is unheard of in a democratic process will have to fail. 6. Rule 262 of the LS Rules falling in Chapter XXVI dealing with Parliamentary Committees states that in the case of an equality of votes on any matter, the Chairperson or the person acting as such, shall have a second or casting vote. Rule 261 says that all questions at any sitting of a Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting. Rule 253 says that unless the context otherwise requires, ‘Committee’ means and includes ‘Parliamentary Committee’ as defined in sub-rule (1) of rule 2. Rule 261 says that all questions at any sitting of a Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting. Rule 253 says that unless the context otherwise requires, ‘Committee’ means and includes ‘Parliamentary Committee’ as defined in sub-rule (1) of rule 2. Parliamentary Committee as defined in sub-rule (1) of rule 2 means a Committee which is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker and which works under the direction of the Speaker and presents its report to the House or to the Speaker and the Secretariat for which is provided by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Rule 77 of the RS Rules dealing with the casting vote of Chairman of Committee says that in the case of equality of votes on any matter the Chairman of the Committee or other person presiding shall have a second or casting vote. This Rule falls in Chapter IX dealing with Legislation. Rule 77 comes under the sub-heading (c) dealing with Select Committees on Bills. Rule 72 deals with the Constitution of the Committees. Sub-rule (1) says that the members of a Select Committee on a Bill shall be appointed by the Council when a motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee is made. Rule 73(1) says that the Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Chairman from amongst the members of the Committee and the Proviso says that where the Deputy Chairman is a member of the Committee, he shall be appointed Chairman of the Committee. The LS Rules and the RS Rules as the names itself indicate, deal with the procedure to be followed for the transaction of business in the respective Houses of Parliament. The aforesaid Rules lay down the procedure to be followed by the Committees concerned in the conduct of business in the situations referred therein and they obviously and apparently do not refer to or deal with the procedure to be followed in the event of a tie in the election to the Committees. The Committees concerned can conduct sittings and take decisions only after they are constituted, and it is only then the Chairman can cast his second vote/casting vote in the event of a tie. 7. The Committees concerned can conduct sittings and take decisions only after they are constituted, and it is only then the Chairman can cast his second vote/casting vote in the event of a tie. 7. The argument advanced by the contesting respondents that Clause 15 of Ext.P1 provides the course to be followed in the case of a tie in the election, is apparently incorrect. In a democratic set up, the interpretation to Clause 15 canvassed by the contesting respondents, defies all logic. As per Clause 15, the executive committee is bound to take decisions by simple majority and in the event of a tie, the Chairman will have a casting vote in addition to the normal vote. The question of taking decisions by the executive committee will arise only after the committee is formed and apparently not before that. In this case admittedly the executive committee was not formed and therefore for the formation of the executive committee or for electing the office bearers of the said committee, Clause 15 cannot be interpreted to mean that the Chairman has a casting vote. 8. There can be another knotty situation that may come up if the interpretation as canvassed by the contesting respondents is given effect to. As per Clause 7 of Ext.P1, the three members to the executive committee are to be elected by the Union Council from among themselves. Therefore, even the Chairman of the Union Council can contest for the post of a member to the executive committee and vote in the said election. In the event of a tie, can the Chairman, also a candidate, resolve the deadlock by giving his second or casting vote? If the answer is in the affirmative, the result would be that the Chairman would get himself elected to the post by exercising his right of second vote. As held by the High Court of Gujarat in Kantilal Chunilal v. Modasa Nagar Panchayat, Modasa in AIR 1983 Gujarat 109, with which decision we are in respectful agreement, this is against all canons of justice for a man to be a judge in his own cause. Since the casting vote is conferred on an officer and not on an individual, it is required to be exercised as fiduciary power in the interest of the institution as a whole. Since the casting vote is conferred on an officer and not on an individual, it is required to be exercised as fiduciary power in the interest of the institution as a whole. The vesting of such power postulates its exercise in an impartial and bona fide manner and not for one's own benefit. The Chairman in such situations being a candidate also, would be interested in the outcome of the election. Under such circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that the Chairman had exercised her right of second or casting vote in an impartial or bona fide manner. There would be a clear conflict between interest and duty. The casting vote in such circumstances cannot be allowed to turn the scales. 9. In the case on hand, it is true that the fifth respondent, Chairman, who exercised the casting vote, or second vote was not a candidate to the election of the members of the executive committee. But she admittedly belongs to a particular party or owes allegiance to a panel which had fielded one set of candidates, that is, respondents 6 to 8, and therefore she was certainly interested in the outcome of the election. Hence in such a situation it is difficult to believe that she had acted impartially while casting her second vote. In a situation like this where there is conflict between interest and duty, the casting vote or the second vote of the Chairman cannot be allowed to turn the scales. 10. Ext.P1 is silent regarding the procedure to be followed in the event of a tie. Section 65 of the Representation of People Act; Section 135 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Section 79 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, all of which are similarly worded, speak of the procedure to be followed in case of equality of votes. It says that when an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates, and the addition of one vote would entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer shall decide between those candidates by lot and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received an additional vote. Rule 34A(p) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules also says that in case of equal division of votes, the result should be decided by lots to be drawn by the Returning Officer. Rule 34A(p) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules also says that in case of equal division of votes, the result should be decided by lots to be drawn by the Returning Officer. Therefore, as argued on behalf of the petitioners, when the special rule or the bylaw is silent on a particular aspect, the general rule applicable will have to be resorted to. 11. Yet another aspect to be noted is that as per Clause 8(b) of Ext.P1, elections to the Union Council must be held by secret ballot. Admittedly the election to the Union Council was conducted by secret ballot. It was pointed out by the contesting respondents that there is no provision in Ext.P1 byelaw for conducting election to the executive committee through secret ballot. But the college decided to conduct the election using ballots though it was not a requirement under Ext.P1 byelaw as disputes had arisen at the first stage of the election itself. The college adopted the said procedure to ensure fairness in the election. Likewise, though Ext.P1 byelaw does not provide for a remedy or procedure to be followed in case of a tie, interest of justice certainly requires and to ensure fairness in the election, to adopt a procedure known to law. To end the stalemate, adopting the procedure of drawing lots would not in any way affect the interest of either side or be in any way undemocratic. That being so, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.