Municipal councillors challenged refusal to extend their tenure and appointment of administrators. The Court held that elected bodies could not continue beyond five years and upheld administrator appointments under the removal-of-difficulties power despite citation of a wrong provision. The petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
+IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.102217/2021 (LB-ELE) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.102176/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102178/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102184/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102186/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102187/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102212/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102213/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102214/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102215/2021(LB-ELE) WRIT PETITION NO.102220/2021(LB-ELE)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102217/2021:
BETWEEN:
ANJALI SANJAY KULIGOD AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,MUGALKHOD, R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591235
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
2
……RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUGALKHOD IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102176/2021:
BETWEEN :
SHRIDEVI SHRIHAIL MATHPATI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHAYAT, EXAMBA R/O. EXAMBA, TQ. CHIKODI DIST. BELAGAVI-591244.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
3
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING, ANNEXE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 27.05.2021 BARING NO.NAE 65 MLR 2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT EXAMBA IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102178/2021
BETWEEN :
MAHADEV LAXMAN GADADI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHAYAT, KANKANWADI R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ. RAIBAG DIST. BELAGAVI-591222
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
4
ANNEXE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT KANKANWADI IN RAIBAG TALUK IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102184/2021:
BETWEEN :
MANGAL SURESH KOUJALGI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN PANCHAYAT, NAGANUR, R/O. NAGANUR, TQ. MUDALGI DIST. BELAGAVI-591244
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
5
ANNEXE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052
……RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT NAGANUR IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102186/2021:
BETWEEN :
RAVI RUDRAPPA KAMBLE AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN PANCHAYAT, SHEDBAL, R/O. SHEDBAL, TQ. KAGWAD DIST . BELAGAVI-591315
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
6
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT SHEDBAL IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED ANE ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102187/2021:
BETWEEN :
TAMMANNA SHIVAGOUDA PARASHETTI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN PANCHAYAT, AINAPUR R/O. AINAPUR, TQ. KAGWAD DIST . BELAGAVI-591303
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
7
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT AINAPUR IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED ANE ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102212/2021:
BETWEEN :
MAHADEV TAMMANNA PADOLKAR AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN PANCHAYAT, CHINCHALI R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ. RAIBAG DIST. BELAGAVI-591217.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
8
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT CHINCHALI IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED ANE ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102213/2021
BETWEEN :
KASHAWWA KALLOLEPPA SONTANAVAR AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHAYAT, KALLOLI R/O. KALLOLI, TQ. MUDALGI DIST. BELAGAVI-591312
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
……RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
9
NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT KALLOLLI IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102214/2021:
BETWEEN :
LAXMAN LAKAPPA NINGANNAVAR AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN PANCHAYAT, ARABHAVI R/O. ARABHAVI, TQ. MUDALGI DIST. BELAGAVI-591306
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT ARABHAVI IN
10
BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED ANE ETC., IN WRIT PETITION NO.102215/2021:
BETWEEN :
NIRMALA PRAKASH KURI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARUGERI R/O. HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG DIST. BELAGAVI-591220
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT HARUGERI IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED ANE ETC.,
11
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102220/2021:
BETWEEN :
SHOBHA SHANKAR KILLEDAR AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COUNCILLOR, TOWN PANCHAYAT, M.K.HUBLI R/O. M.K.HUBLI, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591118
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.)
AND :
……RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 27.05.2021 ONLY INSOFAR AS APPOINTING OF ADMINISTRATOR TO THE TOWN PANCHAYAT M.K.HUBLI IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT IS CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
12
: ORDER :
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.
13
been held on 02.07.2016 for the term of 30 months and same came to an end on 31.12.2018.
14
ground that the 5 years term of the Councillors of the Municipal Councils is expired. Hence, the petitioners have given a representation to the respondents to extend their term. Since no order has been passed on their representations, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petitions seeking direction to the respondents to extend their term. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to consider the representation. The respondents by order dated 03.06.2021 have rejected the request of the petitioners for extension of term of President and Vice President. Being aggrieved by the same, they are before this Court.
15
and Vice President has been held for the term of 30 days.
for reservation of post of President and Vice President of the various Municipal Councils for the second term. The same has been challenged before this Court for various reasons by Councillors of the Municipal Councils, but the present petitioners were not parties in those proceedings. Since no election has been held to the post of President and Vice President, the Tahasildar has assumed the charge as per Section 42(5) of the Act.
16
appointment of administrator. Therefore, the petitioners have lost 21 months. Hence, the petitioners have given representations to the respondents to extend their term. Since no order has been passed on the representations, the petitioners approached this Court by filing these writ petitions seeking extension of their term.
17
of post of President and Vice President and they are not a party to the earlier proceedings. Without there being any fault, their term of 5 years has been reduced. This action of the respondent is contrary to Article 243-U of the Constitution of India and also Section 18 of the Act. He further contended that, the representation has been rejected only on the ground that there is no provision for extension of term. He has contended that, Section 389 of the Act provides for ‘removal of any difficulties in giving effect to the provision of this Act’. Under the said provision, the respondents have a power to extend the term of the petitioners on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents have failed to exercise the power under Section 389 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishansingh Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others reported in 2006 (8) SCC 352 .
18
19
the State Government has contended that, as per Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, the term of the Councillors is for a period of 5 years from the date of first meeting. The term of 5 years of the petitioners is going to be expired on 01.07.2021, it cannot be extended and there is no provision for extension of the term. He further contended that in similar circumstances, the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8298/2020 on 06.07.2020 has rejected the interim prayer. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
parties. Perused the writ papers.
“18. Term of office of Councillors.- (1) the term of office of a councilor,-
20
This Section is enacted in terms of the mandate of Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India which is as follows:
“243U. Duration of Municipalities,
etc.
The language of Article 243U and Section 41 of the
Act, place no manner of doubt that in any circumstances, the tenure of the elected body of the municipalities cannot be longer than five years. This becomes apparent by the expression and no longer employed in the said articles, the tenure of the 5 years is constitutionally prescribed policy.
continue the tenure of the elected body beyond 5 years.
21
Therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the request of the petitioners by issuing endorsement vide Annexure-H.
22
exercised the power for appointment of administrator, even though there is no any specific provision for appointment of administer after expiry of term of the Councillors, the Government can exercise power under Section 389 of the Act for removal of the difficulties. Section 389 of the Act reads as follows:
“389. Removal of difficulties.- If any
difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette as the occasion may require do anything which appears to it to be necessary to remove the difficulty.”
“509. Removal of difficulties.- If any
difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette as the occasion may require do anything which appears to it to be necessary to remove the difficulty.”
23
20. The said provision has been considered by
this Court in the case of P.R.Ramesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2011 (2) KLJ 529, wherein it has held at paragraph Nos.32 and 33, which reads as follows:
“32. it is apparent, that the exigencies in which Sections 99 and 100 of the Municipal Corporations Actcan be invoked for the appointment of an Administrator, are specific and predetermined, by the said provisions themselves. It is only when the appointment of an administrator has been made in exercise of the power vested in the State Government under Section 99 of the Municipal Corporations Act, that the duration of such appointment cannot transgress beyond the period during which the Municipal Corporation remains dissolved. And in case the Administrator has been appointed under Section 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act, the period of such appointment cannot however exceed six months if the appointment of the Administrator has been made by the State Government in exercise of power flowing out of Section 100 aforementioned. It is apparent, from our analysis of Section 99 (in paragraph 31) and of
24
Section 100 (in paragraph 32), that specific exigencies lead to the invitation of action at the hands of the Sate Government under the aforesaid provision. In our considered view, therefore, the tenure of a maximum of six months suggested in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners will only be applicable if the Administrator can be shown to have been appointed, in the present case, in the exigencies postulated under Section 99 or 100 of the Municipal Corporations act, and not otherwise.
33. From the admitted sequences of facts narrated herein above, it is apparent, that the tenure of the existing Councillors of the BMP (including petitioners 1 and 2 hereinabove) naturally expired on the completion of the term of the said Corporation on 22.11.2006. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the process of elections to the BBMp was conducted during 2009/2010. On the completion of the aforesaid election process, 198 Councillors came to constitute the new BBMP. In our considered view, neither Section 99 nor Section 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act had been invoked for the dissolution of the earlier BMP on 22.11.2006. In this behalf, reference may be made to the
25
three contingencies recorded by us in paragraph 32, wherein Section 99 of the Municipal Corporations Act can be invoked for the dissolution of the existing Corporation, paving the way for the appointment of the administrator. We have also recorded in paragraph 32 above, the three specific circumstances wherein an existing Corporation can be dissolved under Section 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act, which would also require an Administrator to run the affairs of the Corporation. Neither the exigencies laid down in Section 99 nor the contingencies contemplated under Section 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act, were the basis for the conclusion of the term of office of the Councillors of the BMP on 22.11.2006. In fact, the tenure of the elected Councillors of the BMP naturally expired on 22.11.2006. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to conclude, that the appointment of the Administrator in the present case can be stated to have emerged from the authority exercisable by the State Government either under Section 99 or under Section 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act. The contingency in which the Administrator was appointed after the expiry of the tenure of the existing
26
Councillors of the BMP on 22.11.2006 has not been expressly provided for under any express provision of the Municipal Corporations Act. The period during which elected Councillors were not functioning, to run the affairs of the BBMP, an Administrator had necessarily to be appointed. For the situation in hand since recourse could not be made to Sections 99 and 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act, (for the appointment of an Administrator) the State Government, had necessarily to take recourse to Section 509 of the Municipal Corporations Act, as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents. If the submission advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted by literally applying the provisions(s) relied upon by the petitioners, the functioning of the Corporation would stop after the Administrator had been in office for a period of six months. It is difficult to countenance to this. A valid interpretation of a legal provision, can never lead to an unacceptable or impracticable conclusion. We are satisfied, that in the absence of duly elected Councillors, the only manner in which the affairs of the BBMP could be administered, was by the appointment of an Administrator. That having been done during that course of
27
the period during which circumstances were beyond anybody’s control, the same should flow from a statutory provision. Since we have already concluded, that Sections 99 and 100 of the Municipal Corporations Act are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, and since, no other provision, which can be stated to be applicable has been brought to our notice, we are satisfied, that reference made to Section 509 of the Municipal Corporations Act, has to be accepted as the only source of refuge in the facts of the present case. We therefore, hereby, accept the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel representing respondents 2 to 4. In the aforesaid view of the matter it is not necessary to examine the remaining contentions advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. (insofar as the first contention is concerned). For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in the first contention submitted at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
28
though, the wrong provision has been quoted in the impugned order vide Annexure-G, but the Government has power under Section 389 of the Act.
Therefore the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order is passed without any authority of law, is unsustainable.
Hence, the writ petitioners are devoid of merits, accordingly dismissed.
EM
SD/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Could the elected municipal bodies' tenure be extended beyond five years because elections to President and Vice President posts were delayed?
Could the Government appoint administrators under Section 389 despite citing the wrong provision in the notification?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.100817/2021Referred¶186
Kishansingh Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and othersReferred¶189
2006 (8) SCC 352 · Who else cites this
W.P.No.8298/2020Referred¶195
P.R.Ramesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and othersRelied on¶222
2011 (2) KLJ 529,
6 provisions across 4 enactments
ANJALI SANJAY KULIGOD
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKODI
SHRIDEVI SHRIHAIL MATHPATI
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
