JUDGMENT 1. Though the petitions are listed to consider I.A.No.1/2013, considering that the issue arising for consideration in these petitions is with regard to the tender notification floated by the Administrator of the Town Municipal Council, the consideration of the application would be as good as considering the main petition itself. Hence, the petitions are taken up for consideration and disposed of by this order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the elected representatives to the Town Municipal Council, Bagepalli. The admitted position is that though the petitioners have been elected, the Town Municipal Council is yet to be constituted in view of the necessary orders not being passed by the Government in that regard. In such circumstance, the Administrator who has to look after the affairs of the Town Municipal Council has floated the impugned tender notification dated 21.08.2013 as at Annexure-A. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same, on the ground that the development work of the Town Municipal Council should be taken up after the Municipal Council is constituted and not by the Administrator, are before this Court. 3. On notice being served, the respondents have entered appearance and respondent No.3 has filed the objection statement. 4. In the light of the contention which has been put forth, the question for consideration is as to whether respondent No.3 in the present facts and circumstances would be justified in floating the tender for the work that has been indicated in Annexure-A? 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that respondent No.3 is acting beyond his powers. Firstly, it is the contention that the appointment of an Administrator could only be for a period of six months as provided under Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and in the instant case, since the appointment was on 18.02.2013, the Administrator could not have exercised his functions in that regard. It is their case that when the petitioners have been elected in a democratic process, they are the persons who would know the interest of the public with regard to the work to be carried out in their Wards. Hence, they contend that the work should be undertaken only after the Council is constituted and they have a right and say in the said matter. Hence, they contend that the work should be undertaken only after the Council is constituted and they have a right and say in the said matter. It is contended that the Administrator by floating tender has violated all norms and therefore, the same is to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would however contend that the notification itself is clear that the appointment of respondent No.3 is until the Town Municipal Councils are duly constituted. In that circumstance, since several ongoing work and the work of the development and maintenance of the area which is a day-to-day requirement, the said work cannot wait and in any event, respondent No.3 is following a transparent process by calling for bids and thereafter work would be entrusted. It is therefore contended that the petitioners have approached this Court without any manner of right and the petitions are liable to be rejected as otherwise, the Town Municipal area where the work is to be undertaken would suffer. 7. In the light of the contentions, firstly, what is necessary to be noticed is that though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners were elected in the elections which were conducted to elect the members to the Town Municipal Council, the admitted position is that the Town Municipal Council is yet to be constituted and there is no elected body to govern the affairs of the Town Municipal Council. In that view, if the notification dated 18.02.2013 at Annexure-C is perused, the same would indicate that this aspect of the matter has been taken note and the notification has been issued by the order of the Governor, referring to the fact that the Town Municipal Council are to be constituted and therefore in that circumstance, until it is constituted, the power under Section 315 of the Act has been exercised and the Administrators have been appointed, not only to the Town Municipal Council in question, but to all other Town Municipal Council in the State. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, certainly, the day-to-day activities as well as the development work of the Town Municipal Council would have to be carried on and the same cannot await the constitution of the Town Municipal Council indefinitely. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, certainly, the day-to-day activities as well as the development work of the Town Municipal Council would have to be carried on and the same cannot await the constitution of the Town Municipal Council indefinitely. In that view, if the fact that the Administrator is presently administering the affairs of the Town Municipal Council is taken into consideration and in that context, if the impugned notification at Annexure-A is perused, the same would indicate that the major portion of the work indicated therein is with regard to disposal of municipal waste and also the other developmental work. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would however seek to pick out certain works viz., with regard to development of parks and laying of sewerage line which is also indicated therein to point out that the said work could not have been undertaken. In my opinion, such objection by putting forth hair splitting arguments and contentions cannot be accepted by this Court since the development of the parks within the Town Municipal Council is its responsibility and if it is an ongoing process, certainly, the work would have to be carried on. Furthermore, it is not as if respondent No.3 is trying to award work by private negotiation but by floating tenders wherein the entire process of award of work would be available for scrutiny in an appropriate proceedings, if there is objection and if the same arises for consideration. 9. In that view, I am of the opinion that the development work and the regular maintenance work in the Town Municipal Council cannot stop at the instance of the petitioners, more particularly in the circumstance in which the present impugned notification has been issued. Therefore, I see no merit in the instant petition. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. Consequent thereto, the application in I.A.No.1/2013 also stands disposed of.