2010 Supreme(SC) 1173

2010 (8) Supreme 649
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
Election Commission of India — Appellant
versus
Telangana Rastra Samithi & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10244 of 2010
(@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20590 of 2010)
Decided on : 3-12-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Where it has been uniformly stated that where there appears to be an inconsistency between two provisions in the same statute, the enactment has to be read as a whole and the conflicting provisions have to be so construed so as to avoid a clash as far as possible.

Headnote:Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 151A - Appeal filed by Election Commission of India against the judgment passed by High Court in Writ Petition filed by Respondent, Telangana Rastra Samithi, challenging decision of Commission not to hold bye-elections to 28-Vemulawada and 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituencies in State of Andhra Pradesh.- The writ petition involving holding of bye-elections to casual vacancies in State Legislative Assembly, was allowed by High Court by its impugned judgment by applying literal rule of interpretation- It was held that provisions of Section 151A of Act, 1951, were mandatory and that the pendency of election petitions and the uncertain consequences that might follow would not in any manner dilute effect of Section 151A, especially when the Speaker of the Assembly had already notified vacancies as contemplated under Article 190(3)(b) of Constitution read with Section 150 of said Act and had directed Appellant to hold bye-elections for filling up vacancies for the two said Assembly Constituencies along with bye-elections already notified for ten other Assembly Constituencies-Held introduction of Section 151A in the Constitution did not alter the position as far as the provisions of Section 84 and consequently 98(c) and 101(b) of the 1951 Act are concerned, since although a casual vacancy may have occurred within the meaning of Section 150 of the 1951 Act, those vacancies in which election petitions had been filed and were pending could not be held to have become available for the purposes of being filled up within the time prescribed under Section 151A of 1951 Act- Article 190(3)(b) of Constitution merely indicates that if a Member of a House of a Legislature of State resigns his seat by writing to the Speaker and such resignation is accepted, his seat shall become vacant- It does not introduce any element of compulsion on the Election Commission to hold a bye-election ignoring the provisions of Section 84 of the Act- In such cases, such casual vacancies are not available for being filled up and Commission will have to wait for holding elections in such Constituencies until a decision is rendered in regard to the latter part of Section 84 of the 1951 Act during the life of House- The view expressed by High Court being unsustainable set aside- Appeal allowed. (Paras 35, 36)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed by Election Commission of India against the judgment passed by High Court in Writ Petition filed by Respondent, Telangana Rastra Samithi, challenging decision of Commission not to hold bye-elections to 28-Vemulawada and 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh.. The writ petition involving holding of bye-elections to casual vacancies in State Legislative Assembly, was allowed by High Court by its impugned judgment by applying literal rule of interpretation. It was held that provisions of Section 151A of Act, 1951, were mandatory and that the pendency of election petitions and the uncertain consequences that might follow would not in any manner dilute effect of Section 151A, especially when the Speaker of the Assembly had already notified vacancies as contemplated under Article 190(3)(b) of Constitution read with Section 150 of said Act and had directed Appellant to hold bye-elections for filling up vacancies for the two said Assembly Constituencies along with bye-elections already notified for ten other Assembly Constituencies.

       Findings of the Court :

        It was held that introduction of Section 151A in the Constitution did not alter the position as far as the provisions of Section 84 and consequently 98(c) and 101(b) of the 1951 Act are concerned, since although a casual vacancy may have occurred within the meaning of Section 150 of the 1951 Act, those vacancies in which election petitions had been filed and were pending could not be held to have become available for the purposes of being filled up within the time prescribed under Section 151A of 1951 Act. Article 190(3)(b) of Constitution merely indicates that if a Member of a House of a Legislature of State resigns his seat by writing to the Speaker and such resignation is accepted, his seat shall become vacant. It does not introduce any element of compulsion on the Election Commission to hold a bye-election ignoring the provisions of Section 84 of the Act. In such cases, such casual vacancies are not available for being filled up and Commission will have to wait for holding elections in such Constituencies until a decision is rendered in regard to the latter part of Section 84 of the 1951 Act during the life of House. The view expressed by High Court being unsustainable was set aside.Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.