1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, arises out of an order of the High Court recorded on 17th of October, 1992, whereby a writ petition filed by respondent Muhammad Siddique was accepted and the proceedings of no-condidence motion carried against him as Chairman of Union Council Rathowa Muhammad Ali Tehsil Mirpur was declared invalid. Four members of the concerned Union Council seek the reversal of the judgment of the High Court.
2. ' The relevant facts are that three members of the Union Council moved an application requesting the Vice-Chairman to summon a meeting to consider a vote of no-confidence against the Chairman of the Union Council, Muhammad Siddique. The total number of the members of the Union Council is six and, according to the rules, 2/3rd votes are required for the success of the no- confidence move. At the meeting held to consider the no-confidence motion, four members voted in favour of the motion. Vice-Chairman of the Council Muhammad Sadiq presided over the meeting and exercised his vote in favour of the motion. Writ petition filed by Muhammad Siddique was accepted on the ground that according to sub-rule (4) of rule 8 of the AJ&K Local Councils (Vote of No-confidence against ,Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, the Vice-Chairman of the Council who was presiding over the meeting in which the vote of No-confidence was passed was not entitled to vote. The relevant sub-rule runs as follows:- "(4) The Presiding Officer, if a member shall be entitled to cast his personal vote but shall not have a casting vote."
3. ' In support of the appeal, Ch. Muhammad Taj, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the provision reproduced above has been wrongly interpreted by the learned Judge in the High Court. He contended that the provision entitles the Presiding Officer to cast his personal vote and this right cannot be taken away by the subsequent provision. The learned counsel relied on "Law Lexicon" by Wharton in which nature of a casting vote has been analysed in light of different legal provisions.
4. ' On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents, Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, vehemently contended that casting vote is that vote which decides a motion and since without the vote of Presiding Officer the vote of no-confidence could not have been passed the vote thus exercised was a casting vote and was exercised in violation of sub-rule (4) mentioned above.
5. ' In the judgment of the High Court the following two interpretations of the 'casting vote' were relied upon:--
(i) According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is the "deciding vote cast by the Presiding Officer to break tie; and
(ii) According to Wharton's Law Lexicon it is the vote given by the Chairman or President of a deliberative assembly when the sufferages of the meeting are equal".
6. ' In the present case there was no tie or equality of votes but in para.
8. Of the judgment of the High Court the High Court adopted the following reasoning:- "In present case, though the number of votes cast by the members for and against the motion was not equal nor there was tie, but at the same time,. By exclusion of vote of the Chairman, the required two-third majority was not attainable. Thus, by inclusion of vote of the Vice-Chairman, two-third majority was attainable. Therefore, by literal construction of the term 'casting vote', the vote of the Vice-Chairman was not countable in the light of the restriction imposed under sub-rule
(4) of rule 8. By exclusion of vote of the Vice-Chairman, the two-third majority in support of motion of no-confidence was not available."
7. ' This reasoning is not sustainable. The High Court had in the earlier part of the order expressed the view that casting vote meant a vote which was exercised in case of equality but then proceeded to hold that by "literal construction" the vote of the Vice-Chairman was not countable. The word "literal" means "by letter". Meaning of the "casting vote" is a vote which is exercised in case of equality. There is no question that a "literal construction" should make room for any other meaning when there is no tie.
8. ' Different provisions are made in respect of a 'casting vote' by statutes. Some statutes provide that a person who has a vote shall not exercise it until it is required to break a tie or, in other words, where votes are equal. There are other statutes which provide for a second vote which can be exercised when, having already exercised his personal vote, the Presiding Officer is allowed to cast another vote if there is a tie. In the present case if the vote of the Presiding Officer is excluded there was no tie or equality of votes because then there would have been three votes on one side and two on the other. The fact that the personal vote exercised by the Presiding Officer made the votes in favour of the no-confidence motion equal to the minimum requirement does not make it a case of equality of votes.
9. ' It may be observed that a member of a Union Council is elected under the AJ&K Local Government Act and according to the scheme of the Act transactions of the Local Councils are carried out by members of these councils who take decisions by exercising their right of vote.
10. Section 15 specifically deals with the exercise of vote by members of the local council in no- confidence proceedings. Subsection (1) of this section, which is relevant to the subject under discussion, is as follows:- "(1) A Chairman/Vice-Chairman of a local council shall vacate the office if a vote of no-confidence is passed against him in the prescribed manner by 2/3rd majority of the total members of the local council."
11. ' The provision gives the right to every member of a local council to exercise his vote in a vote of no-confidence but the votes have to be exercised in the prescribed manner. The aforementioned manner is laid down in the AJ&K Local Council (Vote of No-confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules. It needs no authority to observe that the Rules cannot be inconsistent with the parent Act. Since section 15 does not deprive any member of the local council from the right to voice it follows that rules made thereunder cannot have a provision to that effect. It is, therefore, not possible to read an inconsistent provision in sub-rule (4) of rule 8 under examination. Sub-rule
(4) mentioned above in fact does not lay down anything inconsistent with section 15 of the Act. It is a basic rule of interpretation that every part of a provision of law has to be given effect to and any construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of the statute will be normally rejected. Keeping this rule in mind it is not possible to hold that later part of sub-rule (4), namely, that Presiding Officer shall not have a casting vote destroys the earlier part of the provision that the Presiding Officer shall be entitled to cast his personal vote. As we read it the second part of sub-rule (4) clarifies that although Presiding Officer can exercise his personal vote but he shall not exercise a vote in the nature of a casting vote.
12. ' In light of the conclusion as aforesaid, respondent Muhammad Siddique was validly removed from his office. Consequently, we accept the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court with no order as to costs.