2015 (9) TMI 1648 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellant s election as a Councilor of the Bruhan Mumbai Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 76 - Time limitation prescribed under Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888 - whether the election petition filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant under Section 33 (1) of the Act before the Chief Judge is within limitation as prescribed under Section 33 (1) of the Act? Held 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 for sale or inspection. In other words the starting point of limitation for filing the election petition for counting 10 days is the date on which the list prescribed under clause (k) of Section 28 of the Act was available for sale or inspection. Therefore in order to see as to when the list was prepared and made available for sale or inspection it is necessary to read Section 28 (k) of the Act - if 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 that reason there appears to be some kind of ambiguity noticed in its interpretation then such provision should be interpreted as far as possible in a manner which may benefit the elected candidate rather than the election petitioner. On which date such list was available for sale or inspection to the voter of the ward? - Held that - There is no hesitation in holding 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 by the Returning Officer - the list prescribed under Section 28(k) was available for inspection and sale to the voters of the ward in question on 17.02.2012. In view of this finding the limitation to file election petition would begin from 17.02.2012 and it will be up to 27.02.2012. In other words period of limitation of 10 days prescribed for filing the election petition in Section 33 (1) of the Act would begin from 17.02.2012 and it would be up to 27.02.2012. The legislative intention appears to be clear leaving no ambiguity therein by including Section 28 (k) only and excluding Section 10 and 32 in Section 33 (1). The election petition filed by respondent No.1 out of which this appeal arises was barred by limitation and hence it should have been dismissed as being barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election petition filed by respondent No.1 was within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 33(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Limitation Period for Filing Election Petition
The primary issue in this case was whether the election petition filed by respondent No.1 questioning the appellant's election as a Councilor of the Bruhan Mumbai Municipal Corporation was within the limitation period prescribed under Section 33(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

Relevant Facts:
- The election was held on 16.02.2012, and the counting of votes took place on 17.02.2012.
- The Election Officer declared the appellant elected on the same day (17.02.2012) and issued a certificate in Form No. 21-C.
- The Municipal Commissioner published the Official Gazette on 21.02.2012, declaring the names of the elected candidates.

Arguments:
- Appellant's Argument: The election petition was required to be filed within 10 days from 17.02.2012, the date on which the list prescribed under Section 28(k) was available for sale or inspection. Therefore, the limitation period ended on 27.02.2012, making the petition filed on 28.02.2012 barred by limitation.
- Respondent No.1's Argument: The limitation period began on 21.02.2012, the date of publication in the Official Gazette. Thus, the petition filed on 28.02.2012 was within the limitation period, ending on 02.03.2012.

Court's Analysis:
- The Court examined Section 28(k) and Section 33(1) of the Act. Section 33(1) prescribes a limitation of 10 days from the date the list under Section 28(k) is available for sale or inspection.
- The Court found that the list was prepared and made available for inspection and sale on 17.02.2012, immediately after the declaration of the election results.
- The Court emphasized that the starting point of the limitation period is the date the list is available for sale or inspection, not the date of publication in the Official Gazette.
- The Court referred to the principle of statutory interpretation, stating that the language of the statute should be interpreted by giving it its natural meaning, and the Court cannot read into the statute words that are not there.

Conclusion:
- The Court held that the limitation period began on 17.02.2012 and ended on 27.02.2012.
- Since the election petition was filed on 28.02.2012, it was barred by limitation.
- The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The Election Petition No.129 of 2012 was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Additional Observations:
- The Court noted that the State Election Commissioner should frame Rules under Section 28(k) for its proper implementation to avoid ambiguity in the future.
- The Court reiterated that in the absence of any provision for condoning the delay, the Chief Judge had no power to condone the delay in filing the election petition beyond the prescribed period.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, and the election petition filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed as barred by limitation. There was no order as to costs.