M. B. SRIKANTHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1987 DIGILAW 343 (KAR)

BOPANNA. J. ,, J. ( 1 ) 1. This petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the Municipal councillors of City Municipal Council, mandya. They have challenged the appointment of respondent-3 as President of the said City Municipal Council under government Notification dated 1-9-1987 produced as Annexure-B in the writ petition. The said notification was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 42 (12) of the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964 (for short 'the Act' ). By that notification, the State Government appointed respondent-3 as the President to perform the duties of the President during the extended period upto 31-12-1987. The necessity for this notification arose because of the fact that earlier, the State government had extended the term of municipal Councillors of City Municipal council, Mandya upto 31-12-1987 by a notification dated 6-7-1987. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that both the notifications of the State government viz. , Annexures-A and B are without jurisdiction since after the expiry of the term of the Councillors who had been elected earlier as Councillors of the mandya Municipality, the State Government should have ordered fresh elections to the posts of Municipal Councillors without granting an extension to the term of the Municipal Councillors upto 31-12- 1987. This extension, it is alleged has thwarted the process of democratic functioning of the Municipal council in question. The petitioners have alleged that the reasons given by the State Government for extending the term of Municipal councillors are wholly extraneous to the requirement of the relevant provision of the Act and that was done only with a view to ensure that the existing Municipal Councillors and the President duly elected by them earlier could hold on to their offices till the expiry of 31-12-1987. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have relied on the decision of this Court rendered recently in a dispute arising from the Hassan Municipality. This Court in W. P. . ( 4 ) THE petitioners have relied on the decision of this Court rendered recently in a dispute arising from the Hassan Municipality. This Court in W. P. . No. 13459/ 1987 has taken the view that the appointment of the President and the Vice- president of City Municipal Council of hassan was opposed to the provisions of section 42 (11) of the Act and relying on the earlier decisions of this Court on this point, this Court had allowed the petition and quashed the appointments of the president and Vice-President made under sec. 42 (12) of the Act. Pursuant to the notice issued to the government, the learned Advocate General has entered appearance. He invited my attention to the special features in this case, namely, that in Mandya Municipal Council, the term of the office of the president and the Vice-President was co- terminus with the term of the Municipal councillors and it was not fixed for a limited period as in the case of Hassan municipality under the provisions of Section 42 (11) of the Act and their term being Co-terminus with the term of the municipal Councillors, the State Government had acted within its jurisdiction to make the impugned orders. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in K. Oblegowda v. Deputy Commissioner. Mysore and others (1966 (1) Mys. L. J. 117 ). That decision was rendered by the Division Bench on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Mysore Municipalities Act. The learned advocate General also placed reliance on the provisions of Section 14 of the Act which according to him necessitated the postponement of the elections to the municipality in question till a revised electoral roll was prepared by the Municipal council in order to give effect to the amended provisions of Sub-section 1a of sec. 14 of the Act. He maintained that though under Sec. 14 (1), the electoral roll for the time being in force for such part of the Constituency of Assembly as is included in a division of a Municipality shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the list of voters for such division, under Subsection (1a) of section 14. the age of voters eligible to vote in Municipal Elections was reduced from 21 years to 18 years. the age of voters eligible to vote in Municipal Elections was reduced from 21 years to 18 years. Therefore, it was incumbent on the authorities to prepare a revised electoral roll by including persons who are between the age group of 18 and 21 and that is the reason, the state Government thought it fit to postpone the elections beyond 31-12-1987. Prima facie, this contention of the learned advocate General appears to be correct. Therefore, the reasons given by the State government in Annexure-A for extending the term of the Office of the Municipal councillors of the City Municipal Councils upto 31-12 1987 cannot be challenged on the ground that the same was made on extraneous considerations. That takes me to the next point raised by the petitioners. ( 5 ) MR. W. K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 42 (11) of the act, the term of the Office of the President and the Vice-President came to an end by efflux of time and therefore, notwithstanding the extension of the term of the Municipal Councillors under Annexure-A, the Municipal Council should have elected a new President and that is the only way the Municipal Council should function within the four corners of the statute. It may be noticed that in hassan Municipal case in W. P. . No. 13459/1987, the term of the office of the president and the Vice-President was limited to two years under the proviso to section 42 (11) of the Act. But in the instant case, no such limitation was fixed limiting the period of the office of the president and the Vice-President. Both the offices were co-terminus with the term of the Municipal Councillors. Their term having been extended upto 31-12- 1987, there was no bar for the Government to extend the term of the offices of the President and the Vice-President by having recourse to the provisions of Section 42 (12) of the Act. This is exactly what was decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Oblegowda's case. To quote the observation of the Division bench :" A Municipal Council consists of a president, a Vice-President and the councillors. All of them are components parts of a Municipal Council. This is exactly what was decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Oblegowda's case. To quote the observation of the Division bench :" A Municipal Council consists of a president, a Vice-President and the councillors. All of them are components parts of a Municipal Council. The extension of the life of a Municipal council generally means, subject to any provision of law to the contrary, an extension of the term of the President, the Vice-President and the councillors. " ( 6 ) DEALING with the facts of that case, the Division Bench observed :"we have earlier seen that the term of the President and the Vice-President elected under the 1951 Act would have expired at the end of two years from the date of their election provided that in the meantime they had not ceased to be councillors. But under Section 42 (11) of the 1964 Act, the term of office of every President or every Vice-President would only cease on the expiry of the term of his office as councillor. We have earlier noticed that the 1951 Act was repealed by the 1964 Act which means that Section 23 (11) of that Act is not in force from the date 1964 Act came into force. In view of the Government Notification dated April 30th, 1965, the petitioner would continue as a Councillor till 31-3-1966. " ( 7 ) FOLLOWING the decision of the Division bench in Oblegowda's case, I am of the view that the challenge to the impugned notifications (Annexures-A and B) must fail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .