SMITA SUBHASH SAWANT versus JAGDEESHWARI JAGDISHAMIN & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 04-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 600 
SMITASUBHASH SAWANT · 
v. 
JAGDEESHWARI JAGDISHAMIN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.6848 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 
s. 33(1) and 28(k) - Limitation period - For filing election 
petition - Challenging election of Municipal Corporator -
Held: Period of 10 days for filing election petition, as 
prescribed uls.33(1) begins from the date on which the list 
D prescribed under clause (k) of s. 28 was available for sale or 
inspection - In the present case, the list prepared by the 
Returning Officer on 17. 2.2012 was issued uls. 28(k) and such 
list was also available for sale and inspection to the voters of 
the ward on 17.2.2012 itself- Thus, the limitation for filing 
E the election petition would begin from 17.2.2012 upto 
27.2.2012- The petition in the present case, since was filed 
on 28.2.2012 Would be barred by limitation and hence liable 
to be dismissed. 
F 
s.28(k) - Power under- To State Election Commission 
- To frame rules - Rules not framed by the Commission -
Leading to ambiguity in interpretation of s.28(k) - Held: In 
absence of the rules, the provision should be interpreted in · 
a manner which may benefit the elected candidate ratherthan 
G the election petitioner- The Commission is required to frame 
appropriate rules within reason.able time - Interpretation of 
Statutes. 
s.33(1) - Interpretation of- With the aid of s. 10 and 32 
H 
600 
SMITASUBHASH SAWANTv. JAGDEESHWARI 
601 
JAGDISHAMIN 
of the Act- For deciding the issue of limitation - Permissibility A 
- Held: s. 33(1) cannot be interpreted with the aid of ss. 1 O or 
32 as these provisions are not mentioned in s.33(1)- Court 
can neither read any words which are not mentioned in the 
section nor can substitute any word in place of those 
mentioned in the Section - Words of a statute has to be B 
interpreted giving their natural meaning - Interpretation of 
Statutes. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. A plain reading of the words "any person 
enrolled in the municipal election roll may; at any time, 
within ten days from the date on which the list prescribed 
under clause (k) of section 28 was available for sale or 
inspection apply to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes o 
Court" occurring in Section 33 (1) of the Mumbai 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 .shows that the period 
of 10 days prescribed for. filing the election petition 
begins from "the date" on which the list prescribed 
under clause (k) of Section 28 of the Act was available E · 
for sale or inspection. [Paras 12 and 13] [610-E-H] 
2. The State Election Commissioner has failed to 
frame the Rules for proper Implementation of the 
functions set out in Section 28(k) of the Act and due to F 
that reason, there appears to be some kind of ambiguity 
noticed in its Interpretation. In that case, such provision 
should be interpreted as far as possible in a manner 
which may benefit the elected candidate rather than the 
election petitioner. [Para 18) [612-B-C] 
G 
Anandilal and another vs. Ram Narain and others AIR. 
1984 SC 1383: 1984 (3) SCR 806 - relied on. 
3~ The list prepared by the Returning Officer on H 
17.02.2012 was in conformity with all the requirements 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A specified in Section 28(k) of the Act. After reading the 
statement of the elected candidate and that of the election 
petitioner, it is also evident that the list prescribed under 
Section 28(k) was made available to all the parties 
including the voter of the ward in question on 17 .02.2012 
B by the Returning Officer. There is no ground to disbelieve 
the sworn testimony of the appellant (elected candidate). 
As soon as the results were announced on 17.02.2012, 
the appellant and respondent No.1 were given their 
respective certificates in Form-21 C as prescribed in Rule 
C 103 of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 
conduct of Election Rules, 2006 by the Returning Officer. 
Respondent No.1 (election petitioner) herself inspected 
the list prepared by the Returning Officer, which she 
0 
could not do unless the list was made available for 
inspection on 17.02.2012 by the Returning Officer. The 
Returning Officer could not have announced the results 
unless he had first prepared the list specifying therein 
the necessary details which were required for declaring 
E the result of election and there was no reason for not 
making the list available

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.