Judgment : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. Petitioners claim to be members of a joint Hindu undivided family of which the 1st petitioner is the kartha, owning extensive movable and immovable properties and more particularly, property bearing Municipal Katha No.3299 & 3300 measuring 80' x 90' at Hassan-Mysore Road. Holenarasipura. 2. Petitioners state that during the year 1968, with an intention to start a Petrol Bunk, applied for and secured a dealership on 27.12.1968 from the Indian Oil Corporation, and put to use the properties Nos. 3299 & 3300 for the said purpose. In the year 1984. it is stated that at the instance of the petitioners for grant of land belonging to the 3rd respondent on payment of upset price, the Standing Committee by resolution dated 8-6-1983 approved the grant of immovable property, being a vacant plot bearing No.2776A, measuring 79 x 45' + 65/2, followed by the letter dated 23-08-1985 directing deposit of Rs.7040/- being the value of the property at Rs.16/-per sq.mtr. On deposit. the third respondent is said to have delivered possession of the plot of land, transferred the Katha into the names of the petitioners and received taxes thereon. 3. In order to upgrade the Petrol Bunk from 'B' Grade to 'A' Grade outlet, petitioners claim to have obtained No objection certificate' from different departments of the State Government while the Town Planning Authority, Holenarasipur approved the proposals. The 3rd respondent – Town Municipal Council is said to have issued a 'No objection certificate' for the proposal, leading to the execution of a lease agreement dated 22-06-2001 with the Indian Oil Corporation for a period of 20 years. On upgradation, the petitioners put to use the open space bearing Nos.2674 and 2776 located on the Eastern side of the petitioners' property. 4. According to the petitioners, the State Government's order dated 2-6-2003 Annexure-"N" in relation to the disposal of properties belonging to the Municipality by way of public auction, being prospective, had no application to the allotment of the plot of land in question. Alleging that the Government order Annexure-"N" isperse illegal; the order dtd. 4.4.05 Annexure-P directing the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of the said plot; and the steps taken to dispose of the said plot by public auction pursuant to the publication dated 25.05.2005 in the Hassan Daily, by the 3rd respondent, have presented this petition. 5. Alleging that the Government order Annexure-"N" isperse illegal; the order dtd. 4.4.05 Annexure-P directing the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of the said plot; and the steps taken to dispose of the said plot by public auction pursuant to the publication dated 25.05.2005 in the Hassan Daily, by the 3rd respondent, have presented this petition. 5. The petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 6-12-2005 of the 3rd respondent interalia contending that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, but with distorted facts. malafide intentions and oblique motives. According to the respondent, the allotment of the vacant plot of land bearing Municipal Assessment No.2776, measuring 45 65/2 x 79, situated on Hassan-Mysore road, Holenarasipura, was an agenda before the Finance Committee, in its meeting held on 8-6-1983, whence, a resolution was passed approving the grant of the said land in favour of the petitioners at a market price. The 1st petitioner, it is said, presided over the proceedings of the Finance Committee as its Chairman and that the resolution dated 8.06.83 Annexure-"Rl" bears his signature. It is next stated that there was no Standing Committee constituted in the 3rd respondent, during the year 1983 and there is no recorded resolution of the Standing Committee as alleged in the writ petition. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioners deliberately suppressed the material fact of the resolution Annexure-"R 1 " since the 1st petitioner, having chaired the Finance Committee, prevailed upon the other Councillors to pass the resolution. The petitioners are said to be guilty of suppresio vari and suggestio falsi/ disentitling them to the reliefs in the petition. The Municipal Council is said to have passed a resolution on the very same day, after the Finance Committee passed the resolution, approving the grant of the vacant land. The fixing of the market value of the land at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. and calling upon the petitioners to pay Rs.7,040/-towards its value, was subject to approval/sanction by the State Government. The subsequent communication between the Chief Officer and the Deputy Commissioner. disclosed the market value of the property being Rs.47.84 paise per sq.mt. and Rs.19,130/-as its value, being in excess of Rs. 10,000/- required the Deputy Commissioner to forward the proposal for approval of the State Government. The 3rd respondent, it is claimed, published a public notice dated 6-1-1989 in the newspaper dated 18-01-1989. disclosed the market value of the property being Rs.47.84 paise per sq.mt. and Rs.19,130/-as its value, being in excess of Rs. 10,000/- required the Deputy Commissioner to forward the proposal for approval of the State Government. The 3rd respondent, it is claimed, published a public notice dated 6-1-1989 in the newspaper dated 18-01-1989. inviting objections, if any, over the resolution to grant the said plot of land in favour of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.47.84 paise per sq.mtr, which was responded to by objections in writing from general public opposing the proposal. The Deputy Commissioner, it is said, conducted a spot inspection on 24-05-1989, whence, one of the objectors is said to have extended his consent to allot the land at the market price. At the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, the 3rd respondent passed a resolution fixing the upset price for the land at Rs.48/- per sq.mt. and submitted the same for approval of the Government. The President of the Hassan District, Congress-I Committee is said to have objected to the allotment of the land by letter dated 5-11-1990. The Director of Municipal Administration -2nd respondent, having regard to the vast area of the land, being a corner plot, held that it is to be sold by public auction and accordingly instructed the Chief Officer of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent it is said, rejected the proposed grant of the land in favour of the petitioner, by letter dated 9-10-1991 Annexure-"R-14", a copy of which was addressed to the petitioners. The 3rd respondent by a communication dated 8-9-1992 Annexure-"R15", informed the petitioners that the proposal forwarded to the Government for approval was rejected and the file closed. Petitioners not being satisfied with the communication, made successive representations to the Hon'ble Ministers and the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan to grant the land in question and despite the exchange of correspondence. having not fructified into a grant led to taking steps to put up for sale by public auction the land in question. 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent. and perused the pleading, the question for decision making is: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for? and if not to what order? 7. 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent. and perused the pleading, the question for decision making is: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for? and if not to what order? 7. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the petitioner suppressed material information of the resolution Annexure-"R1” in which the 1st petitioner acting as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the 3rd respondent allotted the property in question to himself and family members – the petitioners. So also the petitioners made a false suggestion that the allotment of the said property was by a resolution of the Standing Committee; though there was none. 8. It is obvious that the petitioners having approached the Court by indulging in a misadventure of suggestio falsi and suppresio vari must suffer the consequence. I say so because, there is no dispute that the 1s petitioner was the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the 3rd respondent on the date the resolution Annexue-R1 resolving to grant the property in question in favour of the 1st petitioner and members his family, and in addition sought to mislead the court by suggesting that the allotment was by the Standing Committee. It is apparent that the 1st petitioner, with intention to defraud, deliberately suppressed material information and suggested a false statement of fact. On this ground alone, this petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 9. The 3rd respondent--Town Municipal Council constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, in the matter of disposal of its properties is governed by Section 72 read with Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules. 1966 (for short `Rules'). 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Moitan P. Sonu Vs State of Karnataka & Others 1992 (2) KLJ answering the question as to whether a Municipal Council can allot land with Government, sanction, without adequate publicity, as laid down in Rule 39, held thus: "The object of Rule 39 has been stated in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Jaichand v Town Municipality, Rohertsonpet and Others, 1976(1) KLJ 30. We are in agreement with the view there expressed. We are in agreement with the view there expressed. The object of giving due publicity to the proposal to dispose of rights in respect of the property belonging to a local authority before it is so disposed of is quite obvious. The publication is necessary in order to realise the highest possible income and to prevent persons in-charge of the Municipal Council from disposing of the rights in favour of persons in whom they are interested. Disobedience of the provisions of Rule 39 cannot be overlooked. It is a mandatory rule intended to protect public revenue. Matters relating to public revenue cannot be dealt with arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office. Whatever done in that regard should be done in accordance with law, which, in the instant case, requires due publicity to be given to dispose of the property in the prescribed manner. 5. Section 72 is a further safeguard. Publicity given to the proposal of Municipal Council to dispose of property rights under Rule 39 would attract offers from persons interested in acquiring such rights and these offers would enable the State Government to decide whether the sanction of the State Government that is contemplated by Section 72 should or should not be given. Rule 39 is, therefore, complementary to Section 72 and both operate together." (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Applying the aforesaid principles, it is needless to state that the State Government was fully justified in rejecting the proposal of the 3rd respondent–Town Municipal Council to allot to the petitioners the land in question, without holding a public auction. 12. Indisputably, the 1st petitioner being the Councillor of the 3rd respondent, while as Chairman of the Finance Committee, holding a post of authority, was a party to the resolution Annexure-"R1" to grant the land in favour of himself and members of his family. The further question is whether the 1st petitioner a Councillor and Chairman of the Finance Committee exercised power bonafide in granting to himself and members of his family, the immovable property belonging to the 3rd respondent? 13. It is said that fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. The further question is whether the 1st petitioner a Councillor and Chairman of the Finance Committee exercised power bonafide in granting to himself and members of his family, the immovable property belonging to the 3rd respondent? 13. It is said that fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. A distinction deserves to be drawn between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith, the former of which arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say by taking into account bona fide and with the best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant materials which would render the impugned act or order ultravires and a case of fraud on power. Misuse in bad faith arises when power is exercised for an improper motive so as to satisfy private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a person. This is the law laid down by the Apex Court in Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd., Vs Union of India And Others AIR 1986 SC 872 . 14. The Apex Court, in The State of Punjab And Another Vs Gurdial Singh and Others AIR 1980 SC 319 , held thus: "Bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power – sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and often times overlaps motives, passions and satisfactions – is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous consideration, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion." 15. In the admitted facts of the case, there can be no more doubt that the 1st petitioner misused his power to allot the land belonging to the 3rd respondent- Municipal Council in his favour while holding the position of an elected Councillor of the 3rd respondent and Chairman of its Finance Committee. In the admitted facts of the case, there can be no more doubt that the 1st petitioner misused his power to allot the land belonging to the 3rd respondent- Municipal Council in his favour while holding the position of an elected Councillor of the 3rd respondent and Chairman of its Finance Committee. In the circumstances, the observations of the Apex Court in R. Sai Bharathi Vs J. Jayalalitha And Others (2004) 2 SCC 9 , is apposite : "Persons in public life are expected to maintain very high standards of probity and, particularity, when there is likely to be even the least bit of conflict of interest between the office one holds and the acts to be done by such person, ought to desist himself from indulging in the same. Such standards of behaviour were scrupulously observed in the earlier days after independence, but those values have now dwindled and instances of persons holding high elective offices indulging in self-aggrandisement by utilising government property or in distribution of the largesse of the Government to their own favourites or for certain quid pro quo are on the increase. Such actions have to be strongly condemned. Good ethical behaviour on the part of those who are in power is the hallmark of a good administration and people in public life must perform their duties in a spirit of public service rather than by assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity regardless of self-imposed discipline." 16. In the light of the observations of the Apex Court noticed supra, undoubtedly, the 1 petitioner holding a public office, was required to restrain himself in the matter of allotment of land belonging to the 3rd respondent, in his favour. as a Councillor and the Chairman of its Finance Committee. Having not done so, in my opinion. the conduct of the 1st petitioner deserves to be deprecated. The resolution of the Finance Committee chaired by the 1st petitioner suffers from legal malice, colourable exercise of power, is arbitrary and ultravires. 17. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were and are ready to pay the market value of the property in question, is shocking, in the circumstances. No amount of money can invalidate the law declared by this Court in the matter of disposal of properties belonging to the Municipal Council. 18. 17. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were and are ready to pay the market value of the property in question, is shocking, in the circumstances. No amount of money can invalidate the law declared by this Court in the matter of disposal of properties belonging to the Municipal Council. 18. Petitioners have had the benefit of using the property in question for over more than two decades without authority of law. Having regard to the large extent of land measuring 4345 sq.ft. (approximately), being a corner site. situated on the State highway between Hassan and Mysore, the petitioners are liable to the 3rd respondent to pay damages as decided by the Director of Municipal administration after an enquiry and recover the same in a manner known to law, in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the 3rd respondent TMC.