SMITA SUBHASH SAWANTversusJAGDEESHWARI JAGDISHAMIN & ORS.

                         [2015] 9 S.C.R. 600


A                 SMITASUBHASH SAWANT ·
                           v.
             JAGDEESHWARI JAGDISHAMIN & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No.6848 of 2015)
B                      SEPTEMBER 04, 2015
                   [J. CHELAMESWAR AND
                 ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
        Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
c
        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. 1Oor
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
  could not do unless the list was made available for
0
  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 to the voter on 17.02.2012 and
  keep withholding when it was prepared on that day itself
  by the Returning Officer for declaration of the result of
  the election. [Paras 22 and 26] [613-B; 615-F-H; 616-A-
F D]

       4. Respondent No.1 is not correct in contending that
  the limitation would begin from 21.02.2012, for filing
  election petition which is the date on which the election
G results were declared and then were published in the
  official gazette as provided. in Section 10 read with
  Section 32 of the Act. Section 33 (1) only mentions
  Section 28(k) and does not refer to any other section
  much less Section 10 or/and 32 for deciding the issue of
H limitation. If the intention of the legislature was to
  calculate the period of limitation from the date of issuance
     SMITASUBHASH SAWANTv. JAGDEESHWARI                        603
                JAGDISHAMIN

of Official Gazette as provided in Section 10 and/or A
Section 32, then instead of mentioning Section 28(k), the
legislature would have mentioned Section 10 and/or
Section 32 in Section 33(1) of the Act. However, it was
not done. The legislative intention, therefore, appears to
be clear leaving no ambiguity therein by including B
Section 28(k) only and excluding Section 10 and 32 in
Section 33 (1). [Paras 28 and 29] [616-H; 617-A-F]

     5. It is a settled principle of rule of interpretation that
the Court cannot read any words which are not C
mentioned in the Section nor can substitute any words
in place of those mentioned in the section and at the
same time cannot ignore the words mentioned in the
section. Equally well settled rule of interpretation is that
if the language of statute is plain, simple, clear and D
unambiguous then the words of statute have to be
interpreted by giving them their natural meaning. The
interpretation of Section 33(1) read with Section 28(k) is
in the light of this principle. [Para 30] [617-F-H; 618-A]
                                                                E
    Interpretation of statute by (;.P Singh gth Edition page
44/45 - referred to.

     6. Thus, the list prescribed under Section 28(k) was
available for inspection and sale to the voters of the ward F
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. Since the
election petition was filed on 28.02.2012, a date beyond
27 .02.2012, it was liable to be dismissed as being barred G
by limitation. In the absence of any provision made in
the Act for condoning the delay in filing the election
petition, the Chief Judge had no power to condone the
delay in filing the election petition beyond the period of
limitation prescribed in law. [Paras 31 and 32] [618-B-E] H
604         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015] 9 S.C.R.


A       7. The State Election Commissioner would be at
   liberty to frame Rules under Section 28(k) for Its proper
   Implementation. Indeed, when the legislature has
   conferred a rule making power on the specified authority
   for proper and effective Implementation of Section 28(k)
 B then such power should be exercised by the State
   Election Commissioner within reasonable time by
   framing appropriate Rules. [Para 33) [618-F-G]

                        Case Law Reference
 c
          1984 (3) SCR 806       relied on.            Para 19

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      6848 of 2015.

 D        From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2015 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 9388
      of2014.

          Vinay Navare, Satyajeet Kumar, Keshav Ranjan, Gwen
 E    K. B., Abha R. Sharma for the Appellant.

      Sudhanshu S. Chol.ft'.lhari, Vatsalya Vigya, Vijay Kumar,
   Aparna Jha, Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Sangram Singh
   Bhonsle, · Paromota Majumdar, J. S. Wad & co. for the
 F Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1.           Leave granted.

 G      2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
   order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the High Court of.
   Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 9388 of 2014 which
   arises out of judgment and order dated 24.09.2014 passed
   by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Municipal Election
 H Petition No. 129 of2012 holding thatthe election petition filed
     SMITA SUB HASH SAWANT v. JAGDEESHWARI                          605
     JAGDISH AMIN [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

by respondent No.1 herein questioning the appellant's election A·
as a Councilor of the Bruh an Mumbai Municipal Corporation
from Ward No.76 is within the period of limitation prescribed
under Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,
1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
                                                                    B
       3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal,
it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:

    (a) The election schedule for General Election 2012 of
Councilors under the Act was publish.!=!d by Notification dated      c
02.02.2012 declaring the date of poll as 16.02.2012 and
counting of votes on 17 .02.2012. The said Notification also
declared that the list of elected candidates along with total
number of valid votes polled by them will be published in the
Government Gazette on or before 21.02.2012 as required               o
under the provisions of Sections 10, 28(k) and 32 of the Act.

     (b) The appellant and respondent No.1 herein contested
the election from Ward No.76 for Municipal Corporator. The
election was held on 16.02.2012 and after counting, which to?k E
place on 17.02.2012, the Election Officer declared the
appellant herein to have been elected as a Municipal
Corporator from Ward No. 76. A certificate to that effect was
also issued by the Election Officer in favour of the appellant
herein in Form No. 21-C as per Rule 103 of Municipal F
Corporation of Greater Mumbai conduct of Election Rules
2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on 17.02.2012.
Thereafter on 21.02.2012, the Municipal Commissioner
published the Official Gazette declaring the names of the
candidates elected from all the 227 wards of the Municipal G
Corporation with the names of their political parties and the
votes polled by them as per Section 10 and Section 32-(i) of
the Act and Rule 104 of the Rules.
                                                               ..
    (c) Challenging the election of the appellant herein, on         H
606         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2015] 9 S.C.R.


. A   28.02.2012, respondent No.1 filed Election Petition No. 129
      of 2012 in the Court of Chief Judge, Small Causes Court,
      Mumbai. After service of notice, the appellant herein appeared
      before the Chief Judge and filed written statement contesting
      inter a/ia on the ground that the said election petition filed by
 B    respondent No.1 herein was barred by limitation as provided
      in Section 33 (1) of the Act. According to the appellant, the
      election petition was required to be filed within 1Odays from
      the date on which the list prescribed under clause (k) of Section
      28 was available for sale or inspection as provided in Section
 C    33 (1) of the Act. It was contended that since in this case, the
      list was published and was available for sale or inspection on
      17.02.2012, hence, the limitation to file election petition was
      up to 27.0'2.2012 as prescribed under Section 33 (1) of the
      Act whereas the election petition was filed on 28.02.2012 by
 0
      the election petitioner. It was, therefore, barred by limitation
      and hence liable to be dismissed as being barred by time.
      She also filed an application before the Chief Judge praying
      forframing the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue. Initially,
 E    the Chief Judge had rejected the said application but thereafter
      by order dated 30. 07.2013 issued direction to try the said issue
      as a preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, by judgment
      and order dated 24.09.2014, the Chief Judge held that the
      election petition was within limitation. He accordingly
 F    entertained the election petition filed by respondent No.1 herein
      for being tried on merits.

        (d)Aggrieved by the saidjudgment, the appellant herein
    approached the High Court of Bombay by way of W.P. No.
 G 9388 of 2014. By judgment and order dated 09.02.2015, the
    learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition
    and upheld the judgment of the Chief Judge. The High Court
    also held that the election petition filed by respondent No.1
   .herein is within limitation as prescribed under Section 33 (1)
 H oftheAct.
      SMITA SUB HASH SAWANT v. JAGDEESHWARI                        607
      JAGDISHAMIN [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      (e) Against the said judgment, the present appeal has been    A
filed by way of special leave.

     4. Heard Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel
for respondent No.1, Ms. Jayashree Wad, learned counsel for          B
respondent No.2 and Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.

     5. Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the
legality and correctness of the impugned order reiterated the        c
submissions, which were urged by him before the Courts
below. According to the learned counsel, both the Co~rts below
erred in holding that the election petition filed by respondent
No. 1 herein (election petitioner) is within limitation as
prescribed under Section 33 (1) of the Act. In other words, it       o
was his submission that both the Courts below should have
held that the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein
was beyond the period of limitation and in consequence was
liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation.
                                                                      E
     6. Elaborating the aforementioned submissions, learned
counsel contended that in order to decide the question of
limitation and how it will apply to the facts of the case in hand,
two Sections are relevant, namely, Section 33 ( 1) and Section
28 (k) of the Act. Learned counsel contended that Section 33 F
(1) prescribes limitation of 10 days for filing the election petition
and the period of 10 days has to be counted from the date on
which the list prescribed under Section 28 (k) of the Act is ·
available for sale or inspection.
                                                                     G
    7. Learned counsel pointed out that the election in
question was held on 16.02.2012 and counting of votes was
done on 17.02.2012 followed by declaration of election result.
declaring the appellant to have won the election and finally
issuance of certificates of the election result as required under H
608         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A  Rule 103 of the Rules in the prescribed format (Form No. 21-
   C) were given to the appellant herein and the election petitioner
   (respondent No. 1 herein) on the same day, i.e., 17.02.2012
   by the Returning Officer. Similarly, it was pointed out that the
   list of the ward was also made available for sale or/and
 B inspection on 17.02.2012 to all including the candidates
   immediately after declarati~n of result and handing over the
   certificates in Form No. 21-C to both the candidates by the
   Returning Officer. Learned counsel thus contended that in the
   light of these admitted facts, the limitation to file Election Petition
 C began from 17.02.2012 as prescribed under Section 33 (1)
   and ended on 27.02.2012. Since the election petition was filed
   by respondent No.1 on 28.2.2012, it was liable to be dismissed
   as being barred by limitation.

 D .     8. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 while
    supporting the reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court,
    contended that the view taken by the High Court is just and
    proper and hence it does not call for any interference by this
    Court. It was his submission that the limitation to file election
 E petition began from 21.02.2012, this being the date on which
    the gazette publication of election results in the official Gazette
    was published by the Election Commissioner as required under
    Section 10 read with Section 32 of the Act and Rule 104 of the
 F Rules. According to learned counsel, 10 days' period
    prescribed for limitation therefore beganfrom 21.02.2012 and
   ·ended on 02.. 03.2012. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that
    the election petition filed by the election Petitioner (respondent
    no. 1) on 28.02.2012 was within limitation and hence was rightly
 G held to be within time for being tried on merits.

       9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
   on perusal of the record of the case including their written
   submissions, we find force in the submissions of the learned
 H counsel for the appellant.



                                                   ...
        SMITA SUB HASH SAWANT v. JAGDEESHWARI                       609
        JAG DISH AMIN [ABHAY MANO HAR SAP RE, J.]

     10. The question which arises for consideration in this         A
appeal is 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?
                                                                     B
     11. Section 28 (k) and Section 33 ( 1) of the Act, which are
relevant for deciding the aforesaid question, read as under:

    "                         Section 28 (k)

        (k) the State Election Commissioner shall, as soon C
        as may be, declare the result of the poll, specifying
        the total number of valid votes given for each
        candidate, and shall cause lists to be prepared for
        each ward, specifying the name of all candidates,
                                                              0
        and the number of valid votes given to each
        candidate. In accordance with such rules as the
        State Election Commissioner may frame for the
        purpose and on payment of such fee as may be
        prescribed by him a copy of such list shall be E
        supplied to any candidate of the ward and shall be
        available for inspection to any voter of the ward.

                           Section 33 (1)

        Election petitions to be heard and disposed of by F
        Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. ·

        (1) If .the qualification of any person declared to be
        elected for being a councilor is disputed, or if the
        validity of any election is questioned, whether by G
        reason of the improper rejection by the State
        Elections Commissioner of a nomination or of the
        improper reception of refusal of a vote, or for any
        other cause or if the validity of the election of a
        person is questioned on the ground that he has H
610        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015]9 S.C.R


A          committed a corrupt practice within the meaning
           of section 28F, 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
 B         apply to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court.
           If the application is for a declaration that any
           particularcandidate·shall be deemed to have been •
           elected, the applicant shall make parties to his
           application all candidates who although not
 c         declared elected, have, according to the results
           declared by the State Election Commissioner under
           section 32, a greater number of votes than the said
           candidate, and proceed against them in the same
           manner as against the said .candidate.
 D
                                            (emphasis supplied)"

         12. The question is-what is the true meaning of the words
   "any person enrolled in the municipal election roll may,
 E 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 Court" occurring in Section 33 (1) of
   the Act
 F
         13. A plain reading of the aforementioned words 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 for sale
 G or inspection. Ir. 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 mac:le available for
 H sale or inspection, it is necessary to read Section 28 (k) of the
       SMITASUBHASH SAWANTv. JAGDEESHWARI                          611
       JAGDISHAMIN [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

 M.                                                                  A
      14. Section 28 (k) oftheActprovides thatthe State Election
 Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, declare the result of
 the poll, specifying the total number of the valid votes given for
 each candidate and shall cause lists to be prepared for each B
 ward, specifying the names of all candidates and the number
 of valid votes given to each candidate. It also confers power
 on the State Election Commissioner to frame Rules for
 payment of such fee as may be prescribed by him for supply
 of a copy of such list to any candidate of the ward and for its C
 inspection by any voter of the ward.

     15. It is pertinent to mention here that till date the State
 Election Commissioner has not framed any Rules as required
 under Section 28 (k) of the Act.                                     D

      16. Section 29 empowers the State Government to frame
 rules for the conduct of election on the subjects specified in
 clause (a) to (i). In addition, the State is also empowered to
 make rules on other subjects regarding conduct of election as        E
 it may think proper. The State has accordingly framed rules
 called Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Conduct of
 Election Rules 2006.

       17. Rule 2 (q) of the Rules defines "Returning Officer" F
  as an Officer appointed as such under Rule 3. Rule 3 enables
  the Municipal Commissioner designate to nominate any officer
· of the State Government not below the rank of.Deputy Collector
  or of the Corporation not below the rank of Assistant Municipal
  Commissioner as the Returning Officer for the purpose of G
  conducting the election. Rule 103 provides that the Returning
  Officer shall complete and certify the return of election in Form-
  21 C and send the signed copies thereof to the Municipal
  Commissioner and State Election Commissioner. Rule 104
  inter alia provides for grant of certificate of election to returned H
612         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A     candidate as required under Section 32 and also empowers
      the State Election Commis_sion to publish the result in the
      Official Gazette.

           18. At the outset, we consider it apposite to state that if
 s    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 in our
      considered opinion, such provision should be interpreted as
 C    far as possible in a manner which may benefit the elected
      candidate rather than the election petitioner.

            19. Th is Court in Anandilal and another vs. Ram Narain
      and others [AIR 1984 SC 1383) had the occasion to construe
 o    Section 15 of the Limitation Act. While construing the said
      section, the learned Judge AP. Sen J. speaking forthe Bench
      observed in para 10 "It is also true that in construing statutes
      of limitation considerations of hardship and anomaly are out
      of place. Nevertheless, it is, we think, permissible to adopt a
 E    beneficent construction of a rule of limitation if alternative
      constructions are possible." Our observations made above
      are also in line keeping in view this principle.

         20. This we have said because we find that the High Court
 F in Para 30 has held that since no rules have been framed and
   there appears to be some ambiguity in applying Section 28
   (k), therefore, in such circumstances while interpreting such
   provision, its benefit must go to the election petitioner
   (defeated candidate) ratherthan to the elected candidate. We
 G do not agree with the High Court on this issue as in our opinion
   it should be the other way round as held by us supra.

       21. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the
   High Court in Para 23 has held that the list was prepared by
 H the Returning Officer immediately after the declaration of the
     SMITASUBHASH SAWANTv. JAGDEESHWARI                          613
     JAG DISH AMIN [AB HAY MANO HAR SAPRE, J.]

result of the election on 17.02.2012 and it satisfied all the A
requirements of Section 28 (k) of the Act. The High Court
therefore held that the list was issued under Section 28 (k) of
the Act.

     22. We are in agreement with this finding of the High Court     B
as in our opinion also, the list prepared by the Returning Officer
on 17.02.2012 was in conformity with all the requirements
specified in Section 28 (k) of the Act.

    23. The next question that needs to be examined is on            c
which date such list was available for sale or inspection to the
voter of the ward. To decide this question, we consider it
apposite to read the evidence adduced by the parties on this
issue in the affidavits.
                                                                     D
    24. This is what the appellant (respondent No. 3 in the
election petition) said on affidavit on this issue:

      "5. I say that the Election Result of Ward No. 76 of
      Mumbai Municipal Corporation was declared by the
      Returning Election Officer on 17th Feb. 2012 at                E
      about 12.30 p.m. I say that after the counting was
      over the Election officer prepared list of votes polled
      by each contesting candidate as prescribed under
      clause (k) of section 28 of Mumbai Municipal                   F
      Corporation Act which is a same list annexed hereto
      as Exhibit A and also annexed as Exhibit E of the
      Election Petition. I say that the said Election result
      as contemplated under section 28 (k) of MMC Act
      was available for sale and inspection since 17th               G
      Feb. 2012. I say that the Petitioner and his election
      Agent and his Counting Agents who were present
      in the counting Hall during Counting of votes, took
      inspection of the Election Result declared by the
      Returning/Election officer I prepared as per Section           H
          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                 [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A        28 (k) of the MMC Act. I say that thereafter the copy
         of the Election Result was taken by the Petitioner
         on 17.02.2012 itself which is annexed as Exhibit E
         to the Election Petition.

B        6.. - ...................................................................... .


         7. I say that on the date- of counting i.e. on
         17.02.2012, I was present in the counting hall and
c        the Petitioner was also present in counting hall with
         her Election Agent and counting Agents. I further
         say that after counting was completed on the same
         day, the concerned election officer had published
         the Election Result as prescribed under section 28
o        (k) of the MMC Act and gave inspection and copies
         of the Result to all the candidates present on
         17.02.2012. I say that the Petitioner himself took the
         inspection of the result on the same day i.e.
         17.02.2012 and thereafter collected the copy of the
E        Result sheet as declared by the Election officer
         under section 28 (k) of the Mumbai Municipal
         Corporation Act. The copy of the same is filed by
         the Petitioner and marked as exhibit "E" to the
         election petition."
F
         25. So far as the election petitioner is concerned, she did .
    not deny much less categorically the statement of the appellant
    quoted above in her affidavit and instead said as under:

G        "3. I say that in so far as preliminary issue framed
         by this Hon'ble Court in regard to the limitation is
         concerned, I say that result of the Municipal
         Elections in question was declared on 17.02.2012.
         My advocate, thereafter, had taken up the matter
H        with the Respondent No. 1 Corporation so as to
         ascertain as to when, the list prescribed under
         SMITASUBHASH SAWANTv. JAGDEESHWARI                         615
         JAGDISH AMIN [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

         clause (k) of section 28 has been made available A
         for sale and inspection by his letter dated
         23.02.2012. Accordingly, the Deputy Election Officer
         of Respondent No. 1 Corporation by its letter dated
         28.02.2012 informed my advocate that Gazette
         Notification under Section 10 to 32 of the MMC Act B
         was published in Government Gazette on
         21.02.2012. I hereby produce original letter dated
         28.02.2012 addressed by the Dy. Election Officer
         attached to the respondent No. 1 as Document
         No.1, I, therefore, pray that the said letter issued by c
         the respondent No. 1 through its Dy. Election Officer
         be read into as evidence in relation to the
         preliminary issue framed by this Hon'ble Court.

          4. I thus, say that the Respondent No. 1 notified D
          result of the election in the Official Gazette by its
          Notification dated 21st Februa_ry, 2012 as required
          under Section 28 (k) of the Municipal Corporation
          of Greater Murnbai.
                                                                        E
          5. I, therefore, say that since the above-said Gazette
          Notification was published on 21.02.2012, election
          petition filed by me is within limitation considering
          Section 33(1) of the said Act."
                                                                        F
         26. After reading the aforesaid two statements of the
    parties, we have 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. This we say so for the reasons that firstly, G
    there is no ground much less sufficient ground to disbelieve
•   the sworn testimony of the appellant wherein she said that the
    appellant and respondent No.1 herein (election petitioner)
    including their voting agents and other persons were throughout
    present in-person on 17.02.2012 during counting of votes. H
                                                                          ...
616        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A Indeed, counting of votes is always done in presence of the
   candidates and their agents and in this case also it was done
   in presence of the candidates, who contested the election.
   Secondly, as soon as the results were announced on
   17.02.2012, the appellant and respondent No.1 herein were
 B given their respective certificates in Form-21 C as prescribed
   in Rule 103 of the Rules by the Returning Officer. Thirdly,
   respondent No.1 herself inspected the list prepared by the
   Returning Officer, which she could not do unless the list was
   made available for inspection on 17.02.2012 by the Returning
 C Officer. Fourthly, 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 the result of election and lastly, there was no reason
   for not making the list available to the voter on 17.02.2012
 0
   and keep withholding when it was prepared on that day itself
   by the Returning Officer for declaration of the result of the
   election.

        27. When we read the statement of respondent No.
 E 1(election petitioner) extracted supra, we find that she did not
   deny her presence on the whole day on 17.02.2012 nor she
   denied what was specifically stated by the appellant in her
   affidavit. All that respondent No.1 herein said was that on
 F 23.02.2012, her advocate wrote a letter to the Corporation as
   to when the list would be available and the Corporation by letter
   dated 28.02.2012 informed her that the Gazette Notification
   under Sections 10 and 32 of the Act was published on
   21.02.2012. On this basis, respondent no. 1 claimed that
 G limitation to file election petition would begin from 21.02.2012
   and not from 17.02.2012.

        28. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, therefore relying              .
   upon the aforesaid statement, made attempt to contend that
 H the limitation would begin, as held by the High Court in her
   favour from :21.02.2012, for filing elt:ction petition which is the
      SMITASUBHASH SAWANTv. JAGDEESHWARI                         617
      JAGDISHAMIN [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

date on which the election results were declared and then were A
publishetj in the official gazette as provided in Section 10 read
with Section 32 of the Act and hence 10 days will have to be
counted from 21.02.2012. Learned counsel, thus submitted
that the election petition filed by respondent No.1 on
28.02.2012 was within limitation because 10 days period B
prescribed under Section 33 (1) ended on 02.03.2012.

     29. We do not agree with this submission. It is, in our
opinion, wholly misplaced in the facts of this case. Firstly,
Section 33 (1) only mentions Section 28 (k) and does not refer C
to any other section much less Section 10 or/and 32 for
deciding the issue of limitation. !n other words, Section 33 (1)
is conb;olled by Section 28 (k) only and not by any other section
of the Act for deciding the issue of limitation. Secondly, if the
intention of the legislature was to calculate the period of D
limitation from the date of issuance of Official Gazette as
provided in Section 10 and/or Section 32, as contended by
the learned counsel for respondent No.1, then instead of
mentioning Section 28 (k), the legislature would have
mentioned Section 10 and/or Section 32 in Section 33(1) of E
the Act. However, it was not done. The legislative intention,
therefore, appears to be clear leaving no ambiguity therein by
including Section 28 (k) only and excluding Section 10 and 32
in Section 33 (1 ).
                                                                    F
      30. It is a settled principle of rule of interpretation that the
Court cannot read any words which are not mentioned in the
Section nor can substitute any words in place of those
mentioned in the section and at the same time cannot ignore
the words mentioned in the section. Equally well settled rule G
of interpretation is that if the language of statute is plain, simple,
clear and unambiguous then the words of statute have to be
interpreted by giving them their natural meaning. [See.
Interpretation of statute by GP. Singh 91h Edition page 44/45]. H
Our interpretation of Section 33 ( 1) read with Section 28 (k) is
618          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A     in the light of this principle.

           31. We accordingly, hold that 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
B     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.
c
       32. It was, .therefore, necessary for respondent No.1
  (election petitioner) to have filed the election petition on any
  day between 17.02.2012 to 27.2.2012. Since the election
  petition was filed on 28.02.2012, a date beyond 27.02.2012,
D it was liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. In
  the absence of any provision made in the Act for condoning
  the delay in filing the election petition, the Chief Judge had no
  power to condone the delay in filing the election petition beyond
  the period of limitation prescribed in law. Indeed, no such
E argument was advanced by the learned counsel for respondent
  No.1 in this regard.

       33. Before parting with the case, we consider it appropriate
  to observe that the State Election Commissioner would be at
F liberty to frame Rules under Section 28 (k) for its proper
  implementation. Indeed, when the legislature has conferred a
  rule making power on the specified authority for proper and
  effective implementation of Section 28 (k) then in our opinion,
  such power should be exercised by the State Election
G Commissioner within reasonable time by framing appropriate
  Rules.

        34. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree
                                                                           ...
   with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two
 H courts below when both proceeded to hold t~at the election
           SMITA SUB HASH SAWANT v. JAGDEESHWARI                         619
           JAGDISHAMIN [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

     petition filed by respondent No.1on28.02.2012 was within             A
     limitation. We accordingly hold that the election petition filed
     by respondent No.1 out of whicli this appeal arises was barred
     by limitation and hence it should have been dismissed as being
     barred by limitation.
                                                                          B
         35. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned
     judgment is set aside. As a consequence, Election Petition
     No.129 of 2012 filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed as
     barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                          c
     Kalpana K. Tripa.thy                              Appeal allowed.




..