ORDER 1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to-forbear from nominating any member to the Planning Authority, Chickmagalur and not to enforce the period of one year set out in the Resolution dt. 29-9-83 (Annexure-B) as the same is ultra virus the powers of the Municipal Council. 2. The petitioner is a Municipal Councilor of Town Municipal Council, Chickmagalur. For Chickmagalur Town, there is a Planning Authority constituted -under S. 4C of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By a letter dt. 15-9-1983,(Annexure-A), the Planning Authority, Chickmagalur, requested the Municipal Council to send its representative to the Planning Authority. The Municipal Council met on 29-9-1983 and resolved to nominate, the petitioner as its representative to the Planning Authority for a period of one year from 29-9-83 as per Annexure-B. According to S. 41(2) of the Act, the representative, of a local, authority who is a member of that authority shall cease to be a member of the Planning Authority when he ceases to be a member of the local authority conceded. So, the Municipal Council could not have restricted the term of the office of the petitioner to one year. Hence, this writ petition for quashing that portion of the resolution restricting his term to one year. 3. Mr. Ranga Rao, teamed counsel for the respondent, urged that the Municipal Council which had the power of nominating the member to the Planning Authority, also had the power to restrict his term of office. He also urged that as the petitioner could have approached the Deputy Commissioner under S. 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 against the impugned resolution, this writ petition is not maintainable. Lastly, he urged that as the petitioner was a party to the resolution and as he has taken advantage of that resolution he is estopped from saying that the said resolution is bad. 4. According to S. 415(2) of the Act, the term of office of a member of the authority nominated by the local authority shall be till he continues to be the member of the local authority. Hence, it is clear that the term of the office of the nominated member of the local authority is fixed under the Act. 4. According to S. 415(2) of the Act, the term of office of a member of the authority nominated by the local authority shall be till he continues to be the member of the local authority. Hence, it is clear that the term of the office of the nominated member of the local authority is fixed under the Act. Therefore, the said period could not have been reduced by the Resolution of the Municipal Council. Hence, the portion of the said Resolution-Annexure-B restricting the term of office of the petitioner to one year would be illegal being contrary to S. 41(2) of the Act. 5. Under S. 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the power is given to the Deputy Commissioner to suspend the execution of the Resolution which is illegal. But, that does not provide an alternative remedy to the petitioner. It is only a discretion given to the Deputy Commissioner as urged by Mr. Mohandas N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Even assuming that there is alternative remedy open to the petitioner, that would not come in the way of exercising the power of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, especially, as the Resolution is found to be illegal. There cannot be any estoppels against law. Hence, I see no force in the contention of Mr. Ranga Rao that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the Resolution to which he was a party and from which he has been benefited. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. Annexure-B in so far as it relates to restricting the term of office of the petitioner to one year is quashed, by the issue of a writ of certiorari. No costs. 7. Petition allowed.