M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are President and Vice-President of the City Municipal council, Hassan, have presented these two petitions questioning the calendar of events issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer on 20th August 1985 proposing to hold election to the office of the President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council on 6-9-1985. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The term of the Municipal council now in office commenced on 31st July, 1983. The President and Vicepresident were elected at an election held on 8-9-1983. One Mr. H. B. Nagaraj was elected as the President and the second petitioner was elected as the vice-president in the said election. As h. B. Nagaraj died, a fresh election was held for the office of the President and the first petitioner was elected as the president on 8-8-1984. The Municipal council passed a resolution on 22nd september 1983 by which it decided that the term of office of the President and vice-President be limited to two years. Acting on the basis of the said resolution, the State Government made an order on 12th March 1984 in terms of proviso to sub-section (11) of Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. The relevant portion of the order reads :"preamble: the Divisional Commissioner, mysore Dn , has reported that the City municipal Council, Hassan under resolution No. 1 dated 22-9-1983 has resolved to restrict the term of the President and Vice-President for a period of two years and has requested for approval of Government. He has recommended the proposal of the City municipal Council. "government in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (11) of Sec. 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, direct that the term of the office of the President and Vice-President of the City Municipal Council, Hassan, shall be limited to two years and that elections to the said office shall be held at the end of the two years. " the above Government order constituted the basis for the issue of the impugned calendar of events by the deputy Commissioner and the Returning officer. In other words the calendar of events has been issued on the ground that the office of the President and Vicepresident would become vacant with effect from 8-9-1985. " the above Government order constituted the basis for the issue of the impugned calendar of events by the deputy Commissioner and the Returning officer. In other words the calendar of events has been issued on the ground that the office of the President and Vicepresident would become vacant with effect from 8-9-1985. " ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the resolution passed by the municipal Council limiting the term of office of President and Vice-President to two years after their election and the direction issued by the State Government on the basis of such resolution long after the election of the President and the vice President, would not bind the petitioners and therefore their term of office in terms of the proviso to Section 42 (11) of the Act was co-extensive with that of the term o. f office of the Councillors and therefore the Calendar of Events was invalid. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrappa v. Tahsildar, jamkhandi [1971 (1) Mys. L. J. p. 12]. In the said decision sub-section (11) of Section 42 of the Act came up for interpretation. The said provision as it stood then read thus :"the term of office of every President and Vice-President shall, save as provided in this Act, cease on the expiry of the term of office as Councillor. Provided that the Government may, with the consent of the Municipal council concerned, direct that their term be limited to one year and the elections therefor be held every year. " ( 4 ) THE construction placed by the petitioners on the above provision in the aforesaid case was that as the resolution was subsequent to the election of the petitioners therein, their term of office which was co extensive with that of councillors did not stand curtailed. The above contention was accepted by this court. The substance of the decision was as follows : (I) Unless a resolution had been passed by the Municipal Council limiting the term of office of the President and the' Vice-President to one year and consequent direction was issued by the State government before the election of the concerned person as the President or vice-President, the term of office of the president and Vice-President would be co-extensive with, that of Councillors. (II) The resolution so passed by the Municipal Council would be binding on the subsequent elected Councillors and it is the President or Vice-President elected by a subsequent set of Councillors would have a limited term of office as indicated in the Government Order read with proviso to Section 42 (11) and their term would not be co-extensive with that of the Councillors as indicated in the main provision of Section 42 (11) of the act. ( 5 ) IF the Section had remained as it was there can be no doubt the contention of the petitioner had to be accepted because of the binding decision. But the legislature amended the provision and introduced a second proviso by Act 13 of 1979, The sub-section together with the proviso reads :"42. (11 ). The term of office of every president and of every vice-president shall, save as provided in this Act, cease on the expiry of the term of office as councillor : provided that the Government may, with the consent of the municipal council concerned, direct that their term be limited to two years and that elections therefore be held every second year :provided further that the period limited under the preceding proviso whether limited before or after the date of commencement of Section 6 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1979, shall, notwithstanding contained in any law or in any decree or order of any court, operate only during the term of the municipal council consenting to such limitation. " in view of the second proviso, a resolution passed by a Municipal Council operates only during the term of the municipal Council consenting to such limitation notwithstanding anything contained in any law or in any decree or order of any court. The clear effect of the second proviso is that a resolution passed by a Municipal Council applies to the set of councillors in office on the day when the resolution is passed and does not bind the subsequent set of councillors. In view of this amendment, it is obvious that the resolution passed on 22-9-1983 binds the present set of councillors only. If that is the effect sought to be brought about by the second proviso, it can no longer be contended that the resolution does not bind the president or the Vice-President just because they were elected prior to the passing of the resolution. If that is the effect sought to be brought about by the second proviso, it can no longer be contended that the resolution does not bind the president or the Vice-President just because they were elected prior to the passing of the resolution. Any other construction would render the provision otiose. The clear legislative intention of the second proviso, therefore, is if a resolution is passed by the Municipal council which could normally be passed after the election of the President and the Vice-President and a direction is given by the Government on the said basis, that would limit the term of office of the President and the Vice-President. In view of the second proviso, I find no substance in the contention of the petitioners that their term of office has not been limited. From this it follows the calendar of events issued is in accordance with law. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged an alternative contention in respect of the first petitioner, namely, that as he was elected as President on 8-8-1984 he was entitled to continue for a period of two years from 8-8-1984 and therefore there could be no election to the office of the President. This contention is also fallacious. The President was elected in the first instance by the present Council on 8-9-1983. His office as on the date of election was co-extensive with that of Councillors. But it was limited for two years by the resolution of the Municipal Council made on 22-9-1983 and the Government Order dated 12-3-1984 As the then incumbant died before completing two years, the petitioner was elected as President on 8-8-1984. Therefore, his term of office is only the balance of the period of the president who was elected on 8-9-1983. Therefore, I find no substance in the alternative contention of the first petitioner. In the result, I make the following order : the petitions are rejected. --- *** --- .