ivil Appeal No 3573 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 2561991 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 1926 of 1991
G Ramaswamy Attorney General KK Jain G Banerjee Pramod Dayal and Ajay K Jain for the Appellants
SV Mehta AK Sanghi Manjul Bajpai and section Grover for the Respondent
Gopal Subramanium Manjul Bajpai and section Grover for the Intervenor
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
Leave granted
Counsel heard
This appeal is being disposed of by consent at the stage of granting of special leave in view of the urgency
Appellant No 1 is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India a body incorporated under the  hereinafter referred to as the Act
Appellant No 2 is the Secretary of Appellant No1 Institute
Appel lant No 1 was formed with the object of regulating the profession of the Chartered Accountants
Section 9 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Council of Appel lant No1 Institute and prescribes that the affairs of the said Institute shall be managed by the said Council which comprises not more than 24 persons elected by the fellows of the Institute and 6 persons nominated by the Central Govern ment
Sub section 1 of Section 10 of the Act provides that the election of the said Council shall be conducted in the prescribed manner
Section 30 of the Act confers powers upon the Council to make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Act
In exercise of the said powers the Council framed regulations known as the Chartered Accountants Regulations hereinafter referred to as the Regulations
Chapter VI of the said Regulations 924 deals with the topic of Elections
Regulation 82 provides that the Council shall notify in the Gazette of India at least three months before the date of an election the dates fixed for various stages of election of the members of the Council like receipt of nominations
scrutiny of nomi nations withdrawal of nominations polling dates and so on
Regulation 871 provides that the Council shall publish in the Gazette of India a notice setting out the number of members to be elected and calling for nominations of candi dates for election by a specified date at least three months prior to the date of election
Sub regulation 2 of Regulation 87 which is the regulation coming up for con struction before us reads as follows 2 The nomination of a candidate shall be i In the appropriate form duly signed by the candidate and by the proposer and the seconder both of whom shall be persons entitled to vote in the election in the relevant regional constituency and ii forwarded by registered post to the Secretary by name so as to reach him not later than 5 pm on the specified date
Provided that a nomination delivered against an acknowledgement before the afore said time and date shall be deemed to have been so forwarded and so having reached if the Secretary is satisfied that the nomination has been duly fowarded by registered post at least 48 hours before the aforesaid time and date
 Sub regulation 3of Regulation 87 provides inter alia for the contents of the nominations
We are not concerned with the rest of the regulations for the purpose of this appeal
The final time for the receipt of the nominations was fixed as 500 pm on 20th May 1991 and it was extended to 500 pm on 21st May 1991
The respondent forwarded his nominations by registered post to the Secretary on May 17 1991 and May 18 1991 respectively
The nominations however did not reach the Secretary by 500 pm on May 21 1991 being the final time and date prescribed for the receipt of the nominations
Actually they were received by the Secretary of 925 the Council by registered post on May 23 1991 and May 27 1991 respectively
These nominations were rejected on the ground that they were received after the time fixed for the receipt of the nominations and the name of the respondent was not included in the list of the candidates who had filed their nominations for election to the Council
Being ag grieved the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting his nominations
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court which decided the writ petition took the view that a plato reading of subregulation 2 of Regulation  87 made it clear that the Only mode prescribed by the Regula tions is to tender the nomination by registered post and the rigour of the rule that the nominations must reach before the specified date and specified time Was relieved by the insertion of the proviso
It was held by the Division Bench that once the Secretary was satisfied that a nomination had been duly fowarded by registered post to him at least 48 hours before the specified date and time it must be deemed to have been received within the time provided
On the basis of this conclusion the High Court made the rule absolute
It is the correctness of this decision which is sought to be challenged before us
It was submitted by learned Attorney General who ap peared on behalf of the appellants that under sub regulation 2 of Regulation 87 the general rule is that the nomina tions must be forwarded by registered post and must reach the Secretary of the Council not later than 500 pm on the specified date the specified date in this case being May 21 1991
It was further urged by him that the proviso which to a certain extent relaxed this rule came into play only where a nomination was delivered to the Secretary against an acknowledgement before the specified time and specified date and the Secretary was satisfied that a valid nomination had been duly fowarded by registered post to him at least 48 hours before the specified date and time
It was contended by learned Attorney General that the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court had erred in disregarding the opening part of the proviso which read provided that a nomination delivered against an acknowledgement before the aforesaid time and date   In our view there is a considerable force in the sub mission of learned Attorney General
It is trite to say that in construing any regulation or rule it would not be proper to ignore any part of it except in special circumstances
Moreover accepting the construction placed by the Bombay High Court on the said proviso would lead to a startling result for examle a nomination might have to be treated as 926 received within the specified the anddate even though it might never have reached the Secretary at all or might reach the Secretary after the date of the election merely because the Secretary is satisfied that the nomination had been duly forwarded to him by registered post at least 48 hours before the specified time and date
1 is not unknown that the letters sent by registered post are occasionally received after a long delay of several weeks and on some occasions they do not reach at all
If the construction placed on the said proviso in the impugned judgment were accepted in such a case as aforestated the entire election would have to be set aside leading to great confusion and hardship
This consequence must necessarily follow if the view taken by the Bombay High Court were to be accepted in our opinionthe entire scheme of sub regulation 2 and the proviso shows that one of the main pre conditions required before a nomi nation can be said to have been duly received is that a valid nomination must be received by the Secretary before the specified time and date
It is true that the rule in terms requires that the nominations should be sent by registered post but taking into account the fact that such a nomination might not be received by the Secretary even though posted more than 48 hours before the specified time and date it was provided that if the nomination was delivered let us say by hand to the Secretary before the specified time and date against acknowledgement that nomination would be treated as having been validly received provided the Secretary was satisfied that the nomination was forwarded by registered post to him by the candidate 48 hours prior to the specified time and date
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that in the light of the proviso to sub regulation 2 of Regulation 87 what was intended to be prescribed by the use of the expression so as to reach him not later than 500 pm on the specified date in clause ii of sub regulation 2 of Regulation 87 was that the nominations which had been forwarded by registered post to the Secretary 48 hours before the specified time and date of the election must be deemed to have reached the Secretary in time
In our view this contention is fallacious
What is meant by the use of the aforesaid expression in sub regulation 2 of Regulation 87 is that the nomination must be forwarded by registered post to the
Secretary so as to reach him in fact or actually reach him not later than 500 pm on the specified date
The rigour of the rule is relaxed by the proviso under which if the nomination was delivered against an acknowledgement before the specified time and date it would be deemed to have been forwarded and to have reached as provided in clause ii of sub regulation 2 referred to earlier pro vided the Secretary was satisfied that the nomi 927 nation had been duly forwarded by registered post at least 48 hours before the aforesaid time and date
In view of the reasoning set out earlier we set aside the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court and we hold that the nomination of the respondent was liable to be rejected on the ground that it was not received in time as the respondent had failed to deliver to the Secretary against an acknowledgment a nomination before the specified time and date
However we find that in the present case the elections have already been postponed and the proposed dates for elections will now to be probably fixed in October or November 1991
In these circumstances we direct that all the nominations received upto the end of August 1991 must be treated as received in time provided that the Secre tary is satisfied that they were forwarded by registered post 48 hours before the time and date specified earlier
The Council may fix the elections on any date they consider proper
The appeal is allowed to the extent aforesaid
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
We may suggest that if the Council so thinks the regu lations may be suitably amended so as to leave no room for ambiguity a difficult task indeed
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act U 
P V of 954 as amended by the amending Acts which was intended to encourage the development of agriculture by the allotment of compact areas to tenure holders in lieu of scattered plots so that large scale cultivation might be possible with all its attendant advantages
A notification was issued under section 4 Of the impugned Act declaring the decision of the State Government to formulate a scheme of  consolidation in respect of the area where the petitioners held their lands
This was followed up by a statement of proposals under section 19
The petitioners objected to these proposals and thereafter appealed to the Settlement Officer Consolidation but to no effect
It was contended inter alia on their behalf that 1 the provisions of sections 8 9 and 10 read with those Of s 49 Of the impugned Act were discriminatory in that they laid down a procedure for correction and revision of revenue records for 929 villages under consolidation that was vitally different from that applicable to other villages under the UP Land Revenue Act 1901 2 that sections 14 to 17 as also sections 19 to 22 read with section 49 conferred arbitrary powers on the consolidation authorities in respect of the lands of the tenure holder and his rights therein and deprived him of the protection of courts available to other tenure holders and that 3 section 29B which provided for compensation by giving inadequate compensation offended article 312 Of the Con stitution
Held that the contentions must fail
Although the procedure laid down by the impugned Act was to some extent different from that under the UP Revenue Act 1901 it was by no means arbitrary or devoid of natural justice
Regard being had to the advantages that consolidation conferred on the tenure holder such difference was supportable as a permissible classification on an intelligible differentia reasonably connected with the object of the Act
The expeditious procedure for effectuating consolidation laid down by ch
II of the Act read with the Rules therefore could not be said to violate article 14 Of the Constitution
Nor could for similar reasons the provisions of ch
III of the Act be said to violate article 14 Of the Constitution
The provision Of section 222 Of the Act which made the decision of the arbitrator final by ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts even where a party had obtained a decree which might be under appeal was necessary in the interest of expedition
Having regard to the peculiar conditions in cases of this kind and the advantages a scheme of consolidation offered to the entire body of tenure holders it could not be said that the cash compensation for tenure holders provided by section 29B of the impugned Act was inadequate even assuming that article 312 applied to the case