LexAMRUTLAL CHUNILAL RAVAL versus DATTATRAYA PANDURANG HAJARNIS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
266 AMRUTLAL CHUNILAL RAV AL v. DA'ITATRAYA PANDURANG HAJARNIS & ORS. November 20, 1980 [R. S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] The Maharashtra Mun•fcipalities Act 1965, S. 16(1)(a)-Appellant elected Pr€sident of Municipal Council-Election challenged-Appellant sought to be disqualified on account of prior conviction by court of Law-State Government ._ C order that disqualification to remain in force for a period of six months from appellant's release-Such order-Whether beneficial and refnoves disqualifica~ 'D ·F tion. The l\.faharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 by sub-section (2) of section 51 provides that every person qualified tOI be elected as a Councillor under section 15 shall be qualified for election as President. Section 16 ( 1 )(a) provides that no person shall be qtlalified to become a Council1or whether by election, co· option or non1ination, if he had been convicted by a Court for any offence the maxin1um punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of two years or more and sentenced to imprisonment for any term, unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as the State Goevrnment 1nay allo1v, has elapsed since his release. The appellant stood for election to the office of President of the Municipal Council, filed his nomination paper on 21st October 1974, and was declared elected at the election held on 17th November, 1974. The first respondent filed an election petition before the District Judge challenging the election alleg· ing that the appellant had bCen, convicted on 26th December, 1973 under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 ;~ and that by virtue of section 51 (2) read with section 16 (I)( a) of the Act the appellant was not qualified for election as President of the Municipal Council. -.> During the pendency of the election petition the State Governme.nt made an order dated 20th November 1975 under clause (a) of sub·section (I) of section 16, declaring thaf the disqualification incurred by the appellant 'should remain in force for a period of six months only from his release on 26th December, 1973'. The District Judge aJiowed the election petition and the election of the appellant v.•as set aside. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. In the appeal to this Court', it \Vas contended that the order dated 20th November, 1975 made by the State Government Was retrospective in operation and consequently removed the disqualification imposed on the appellant on the da-te he :filed his nomination paper . ._,~ --... ____________ .,,__,_,,,,__ __ ( - A. c. RAVAL v. D. P. HAJARNIS (Pathak, J.) 267 Dismissing the appeal HELD : ( 1) The appellant does not benefit from the order of the State Government insofar as his election as President in 1974 is concerned. [270 A1 ' (2) By virtue of clause (a) of sub-section (!) of section 16, the State Government had been empowered to substitute a shorter period of disqualifica- tion. A modification of the normal operation of the statute by the State Government is contemplated. Such a modification to be retrospective must indicate clearly that it is so. [269 E-FJ In the instant case, disqualification was incurred by the appellant on 26th - December, 1973 when he was convicted <1!11d sentenced, and the disqualification .If/ was in force when he stood for election. The date when the disqualification for five years was incurred is the relevant date, the subsequent operation is the consequence of the incurring of the disqualification. If the order was to be beneficial to the appellant, it should have been made retrospective from the date when the disqualification was incurred. On the plain language, it must be read as an order reducing the period of disqualification to six months, but to be applied to a disqualification arising after the date when the or<ler was made. [296 G-HJ c D CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1978. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20/2lst March, 1978 of the Bombay High Court in SCA No.2868/ E 76. V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, for the Appellant. V. S. Desai and M. N. Shroff for Respondents 1 to 4. Mrs. Jayashree Wad for Respondent No. 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F PATHAK, J.-This Appeal by special leave is directed against the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.