Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 707 of 1978. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20/21st March	 1978 of the Bombay High Court in SCA No.2868/76. V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna	 for the Appellant. V. section 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 PATHAK	 J. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court maintaining an order of the District Court	 Poona by which the appellant 's election as President of the Bhor Municipal Council was set aside on an election petition filed by the respondent. The appellant stood for election to the office of President of the Bhor Municipal Council. He filed his nomination paper on 21st October	 1974	 and the election was held on 17th November	 1974. The appellant was declared elected the next day and the result of the 268 election was published in the Government Gazette on 25th November	 1974. The first respondent filed an election petition before the District Court	 Poona challenging the appellant 's election. He alleged that the appellant had been convicted on 26th December	 1973 by the Judicial Magistrate	 Bhor under section 16 of the and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ . Accordingly	 he said	 by virtue of section 51(2) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act	 1965	 the appellant was not qualified for election as President of the Municipal Council. During the pendency of the election petition the Maharashtra Government made an order under cl. (a) of sub s.(l) of section 16	 Maharashtra Municipalities Act	1965 ("the Act") declaring: "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act	 1965	 the Government is pleased to order that the disqualification incurred by Shri Amrutlal Chunilal Raval	 resident of Bhor	 Tehsil Bhor	 District Poona	 should remain in force for a period of six months only from his release on 26th December	 1973. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. sd/ M. N. Tadkod	 Desk Officer. " The election petition was allowed and the election of the appellant was set aside. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the order setting aside his election	 but the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 21st March	 1978. In this appeal	 the only point pressed by the petitioner before us is 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 date he filed his nomination paper. Sub s.(2) of section 51 of the Act provides that every person qualified to be elected as a Councillor under section 15 shall be qualified for election as President. Sub s.(1) of s.l5 of the Act provides that every person	 whose name is included in the list of voters maintained under s.11 and who is not disqualified for being elected a Councillor under this 269 Act or any other law for the time being in force	 shall be qualified	 A and every person whose name is not included in the list or who is so qualified	 to be elected as a Councillor at any election. Section 16(1) (a) of the Act provides: "16. (1) No person shall be qualified to become a Councillor whether by election	 co option or nomination	 who (a) has been convicted by a Court in India of any offence the maximum punishment for which (with or with out any other punishment) 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 Government may allow in any particular	 has elapsed since his release; or xx xx xx xx xx " The appellant was convicted on 26th December	 1973 for an offence under the of Food Adulteration Act	 which. it is not disputed	 fell within the terms of cl.(a) of sub s.(l) of s.16. He was sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the court. Because of the conviction and sentence he suffers the disqualification contemplated by cl.(a)	 and the disqualification enures for a period of five years from the date of his release from imprisonment. But	 by virtue of the same clause? the State Government has been empowered to substitute a shorter period 	of disqualification. In other words. the ordinary run of the clause may be altered by the State Government. A modification of the normal operation of the statute is contemplated. Such a modification	 to be retrospective. must indicate clearly that it is so. There is nothing in the order dated 20th November	 1975 from which it can be inferred that it has retrospective operation. What it says merely is that the disqualification incurred by the appellant shall remain in force for a period of six months only from his release on 26th December. The disqualification was incurred by the appellant on 26th December	 1973 and the disqualification 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 merely the consequence of the incurring of the disqualification. In 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 order was made. 270 A In our opinion	 the appellant does not benefit from the order the State Government insofar as his election as President in 1974 is concerned. In the circumstances	 we consider it unnecessary to go into the question whether the State Government has the power under cl. (a) to make an order with retrospective effect. l[n the result	 the appeal is dismissed with costs to the fifth respondent. N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

The Maharashtra Municipalities Act	 1965 by sub section (2) of section 51 provides that every person qualified to	 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 qualified to become a Councillor whether by election	 co option or nomination	 if he had been convicted by a Court for any offence the maximum 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 Sate Government may allow	 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 alleging that the appellant had been convicted on 26th December	 1973 nuder section 16 of the 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(1)(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 Sate Government made an order dated 20th November 1975 under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 16	 declaring that 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 allowed the election petition and the election of the appellant was set aside. The appellant filed a writ petition	 which was dismissed by the High Court. In the appeal to this Court	 it was 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 date he filed his nomination paper. 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 A] (2) By virtue of clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 16	 the State Government had been empowered to substitute a shorter period of disqualification. A modification of the normal operation of the statute by the State Government is contemplated. Such Q modification to be retrospective must indicate clearly that it is so. [269 E F] In the instant case	 disqualification was incurred by the appellant on 26th December	 1973 when he was convicted and sentenced	 and the disqualification 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	 due to be applied to a disqualification arising after the date when the order was made. [296 G H]