ORDER : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. Whether the administrator can be appointed under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act, 1964’) in case the election to the Municipal Council is not held before the expiry of the tenure of the elected Municipal Council, is the question that needs to be resolved. 2. It is admitted that in all the petitions, the 5 years’ term of the Municipal Council has come to an end. 3. The petitioners contend that the State has no power either under the Act, 1964 or under the Constitution of India to appoint the Administrator in a situation where the election is not held to the Municipal Council even after expiry of its five years’ tenure. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri Jaykumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioners raised the following contentions:- (a) Under Article 243(U) of Constitution of India there is a mandate to hold elections within 5 years from the date of first meeting. (b) There is no provision under the Constitution of India to appoint an Administrator in case election is not held before completion of five years’ tenure. (c) Sections 42 or 315 of Act, 1964 do not enable the State to appoint the Administrator in case elections are not held to the council before completion of the tenure. (d) The provisions of Article 243(U) should be read to hold that the tenure of the councillors will come to an end only after the election is held to the Municipal Council. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Gangadhar J.M. would contend as under:- (a) The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. Allauddin and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others , W.P. No.106387/2025 & Connected matters has held that the time during which the Administrator was holding the office cannot be excluded to reckon the tenure of the elected body. (b) The petitioners having not questioned the earlier order appointing the Administrator cannot seek to exclude the period during which the administrator was appointed. (c) The petitioners who are elected for 5 years do not have any subsisting right to continue the office beyond 5 years. (d) Under Section 315 read with Section 389 of the Act, 1964 the State has the power to appoint the Administrator in case the elections are not held before completion of the tenure. (c) The petitioners who are elected for 5 years do not have any subsisting right to continue the office beyond 5 years. (d) Under Section 315 read with Section 389 of the Act, 1964 the State has the power to appoint the Administrator in case the elections are not held before completion of the tenure. (e) The Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Lakappa Ningannavar vs. The State of Karnataka , WA NO.100111/2021 & Connected matters has held that the power is vested with the Government to appoint the Administrator after expiry of 5 years. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in reply would contend that Section 389 of the Act, 1964 has no application to the fact situation obtaining in these petitions. 7. In addition, learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishansing Tomar vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others , (2006) 8 SCC 352 to contend that the election has to be held before expiry of the term and for any reason, if it is not held, then the tenure of the council should be interpreted to mean that, it would be from first meeting of the municipal council to the next election. In addition, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2022) 12 SCC 770 . 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. Allauddin (supra) has answered the questions raised in those petitions and the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench can be summarised as under:- (a) The tenure of the Councillors in Municipal Council cannot be extended beyond 5 years in case the election is not held before expiry of 5 years’ tenure. (b) The petitioners/councillors who have not challenged the earlier order appointing the Administrator under Section 315 of the Act, 1964, cannot challenge the order appointing the Administrator after completion of the tenure, to claim extension of tenure. (c) The period during which the Administrator was in office cannot be excluded from calculating the term of the Municipal Council. (d) The notification issued by the State to hold elections do not impinge the rights of the councillors. 10. As already noticed, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. (c) The period during which the Administrator was in office cannot be excluded from calculating the term of the Municipal Council. (d) The notification issued by the State to hold elections do not impinge the rights of the councillors. 10. As already noticed, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. Allauddin (supra) has concluded that the petitioners/elected councillors cannot claim extension of tenure beyond 5 years in view of the mandate under Article 243 of the Constitution of India. The Court has also held that the period during which the Administrator was in office cannot be excluded from calculating the term of the office. In addition, the Co-ordinate Bench has also held that the notification issued by the State to hold elections could not impinge the rights of the petitioners. 11. However, the petitioners contend that the question as to whether Administrator can be appointed in case election is not held before the expiry of the tenure of the Municipal Council is not raised in Allauddin (supra). 12. To answer the question raised, it is necessary to refer to Article 243(U) of Constitution of India which reads as under:- “243U. Duration of Municipalities, etc. - (1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. (2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Municipality at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause (1). (3) An election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed,- (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1); (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution: Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period. (4) A Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so dissolved.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The contention that Article 243(U) of the Constitution of India has to be understood to mean that the term of the elected body is from first meeting after the election to the next election, cannot be accepted for the following reasons. (a) The language employed in Article 243(U)(1) is very specific. In addition to specifying the tenure of the Municipality (elected council) as 5 years, the provision also mandates that the tenure cannot be beyond 5 years. That is explicit from the expression “ shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer” (b) It is indeed true that the Article 243(U) does not provide for appointment of Administrator in case election is not held before completion of the tenure. However, that does not mean that the tenure of the Municipal Council gets extended till the next election. Such an interpretation will render Article 243(U)(1) which provides for 5 years’ tenure and “no longer” nugatory. It is settled position of law that the interpretation which renders a provision nugatory shall not be adopted unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Said principle applies with more rigour when it comes to interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. (c) As rightly pointed out by Sri J.M. Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate General, the Article 243(U)(1) is to assure the tenure of the Councillors. Article 243(U)(3)(a) imposes the obligation to hold election (by Election Commission) before expiry of the tenure. Both provisions have a different purpose to serve. There is nothing in the Article 243(U) to indicate the that tenure of the councillors can be extended after completion of 5 years provided in Article 243(U) of the Constitution of India. 14. It is also relevant to notice, even under Section 18 of the Act, 1964 the tenure of the Councillor is fixed for 5 years as mandated under Article 243(U)(1). 15. 14. It is also relevant to notice, even under Section 18 of the Act, 1964 the tenure of the Councillor is fixed for 5 years as mandated under Article 243(U)(1). 15. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on Kishansingh Tomar (supra), invited the attention of the Court to paragraph No.14 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “So, in any case, the duration of the municipality is fixed as five years from the date of its first meeting and no longer. It is incumbent upon the Election Commission and other authorities to carry out the mandate of the Constitution and to see that a new municipality is constituted in time and elections to the municipality are conducted before the expiry of its duration of five years as specified in clause (1) of Article 243-U.” 16. It is evident that even the Apex Court has held that the duration of the Municipality is 5 years from the date of its first meeting and no longer and though the judgment has stressed on the duty of the Election Commissioner and others authorities to carry out the mandate and to ensure that new Municipalities are constituted in time, before expiry of the duration of 5 years as provided in of Article 243(U)(1), the Apex Court has not held that the duration of the councillors gets extended beyond 5 yeas till the new election is held. 17. The ratio laid down in Suresh Mahajan (supra), is also to the effect that elections to the Municipal Council has to be held before expiry of 5 years’ tenure. However, the said judgment does not lay down a law to hold that in case election is not held before expiry of 5 years tenure, the councillors can continue beyond 5 years term fixed under Article 243(U)(1) of Constitution of India and Section 18 of Act, 1964. 18. Now the question is whether the State can appoint an Administrator under Sections 315 and 389 of the Act, 1964 or appointment of Administrator is impermissible in a situation where 5 years’ tenure has come to an end. 19. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would urge that Section 389 of Act, 1964, the provision which confers the power to remove difficulty has no application to the present facts of the case. 19. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would urge that Section 389 of Act, 1964, the provision which confers the power to remove difficulty has no application to the present facts of the case. It is urged that Section 389 applies only in a situation where there is difficulty in applying the express provision in the Act. Section 389 cannot be applied to appoint an Administrator when Section 315 or any other provision does not provide for appointing an Administrator in a situation where the tenure of the elected body has expired, is the contention. 20. Sections 315 and 389 of Act, 1964 read as under:- “315. Power to appoint administrator in certain cases. — (1) Whenever,— (a) any general election to a municipal council under this Act or any proceedings consequent thereon have been stayed by an order of a competent court or authority, or (b) the election of all the councillors or more than two-thirds of the whole number of councillors of the municipal council has been declared by a competent court or authority to be void, or (c) x x x (d) all the councillors or more than two-thirds of the whole number of councillors of the municipal council have resigned, so however, the total period of such appointment shall not exceed six months. The State Government by notification in the official Gazette, appoint an administrator for such period as may be specified in the notification and may, by like notification, curtail and extend either prospectively or retrospectively the period of such appointment. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, on the appointment of an administrator under sub-section (1), during the period of such appointment, the said municipal council and committees thereof and the President and Vice-president charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act, or any other law, shall cease to exercise any powers and perform and discharge any duties or functions conferred or imposed on them by or under this Act or any other law and all such powers shall be exercised and all such duties and functions shall be performed and discharged by the administrator. (3) The State Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint an advisory council to advise and assist the administrator appointed under sub-section (1) in the exercise of the powers and the performance and discharge of the duties and functions conferred or imposed on him under this Act or any other law. The members of the advisory council shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government.” “389. - Removal of difficulties. - If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette as the occasion may require do anything which appears to it to be necessary to remove the difficulty. 21. Relevant portion of Section 18 of the Act, 1964 reads as under:- 18. Term of office of Councillors.- (1) The term of office of a councillor,- (a) elected at a general election shall be five years; XXXXX (1A) The term of office of the councillor elected at a general election or nominated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 shall commence on the date appointed for the first meeting of the municipal council.” 22. On a reading of Section 315 of the Act, 1964 it is evident that Section 315 does not provide for appointment of Administrator in a situation where the tenure of the Municipal Council has come to an end and election is not held for the Municipal Council. As already noticed, under Article 243(U)(1) tenure of the Municipality (the elected council) cannot extend beyond 5 years from the date of first meeting after the election. 23. The question is who should run and manage the administration of the Municipality in a situation where the tenure has come to an end and election is not held to the Municipal Council. 24. By interpreting Article 243(U) of Constitution of India, should the term be extended beyond 5 years from the date of first meeting of the election till the election is held or whether the provision can be interpreted to hold that the State can step in by appointing the Administrator in a situation where the election to the Municipal Council is not held even after expiry of the tenure of the Municipal Council. 25. 25. It is well settled principle of law that in case of vacuum or gap in law, which does not explicitly cover a particular situation, then if possible without violating the express provisions, the interpretation should aim at bridging the gap, to suppress the mischief and to advance the cause of justice or larger good. If this approach is adopted, then the interpretation should lean in favour of appointing the Administrator. The reasons are as under;- (a) A Councillor is elected for a 5 years’ term and not beyond. Even the voter who has voted to elect a Councillor has voted for a term of 5 years and not beyond. It cannot be assumed that voters who voted for a Councillor intend that the Councillor should continue after expiry of the 5 years term without there being any election. The voter may or may not vote in favour of the Councillor in case election is held for the next term. The right to vote and elect a councillor for a specific term is available to the voter in the election. Even the voter does not have a choice under the scheme of the Constitution or under the Act, 1964 to urge that tenure of his elected Councillor should be extended without there being any election. (b) The councillor has contested the election with a specific understanding that his tenure is for 5 years from the date of the first meeting of the council (after election) and not beyond. (c) It is also quite possible that in the interregnum between the election and expiry of 5 years’ tenure, new voters who have crossed 18 years may not wish to be governed by the Councillors to whom they have not voted. 26. Thus, the interpretation that the tenure gets extended in the absence of any election or the interpretation that the Administrator cannot be appointed after expiry of 5 years’ term in the event of election not being held, does not suppress the mischief and or advance the cause of justice. In fact, such interpretation violates the mandate of Article 243(U)(1) of Constitution of India. In fact, such interpretation violates the mandate of Article 243(U)(1) of Constitution of India. On the other hand, the interpretation that, in the absence of an elected body (because of expiry of the tenure) the appointment of an Administrator by the elected Government at the State (through its executive), does not violate Article 243(U)(1) of Constitution of India and said interpretation does not violate the mandate of Article 243(U)(3)(a) which mandates election before the expiry of the term. The reason is appointment of Administrator is not the reason for not holding the election, but, not holding the election is the reason for appointing the Administrator. 27. In addition to the above said reasons, it is noticed from Section 315 of Act, 1964 that the provision enables appointing Administrator in following situations:- (a) Where the election to the council is stayed by an order of competent Court or an Authority (b) Where the election of all Councillors or more than 2/3 rd of the Councillors election is declared void. (c) Where more than 2/3 rd of the Councillors have resigned. 28. It is to be noticed that Section 315 is contemplated in a situation where the elected body is not functioning or in a situation where election is not held pursuant to an order by the competent Court or Authority. The whole purpose behind Section 315 is to ensure smooth administration of Municipality in a situation where Councillors cannot act. 29. The Court has already held that the decision to appoint the Administrator is by the elected Government in the State. And the decision is taken in a situation where the tenure of the Council has come to an end. Section 315 essentially aims at providing for an Administrator to ensure smooth day to day functioning of the Municipality in a situation where elected body is not functioning. 30. In a situation where the term of the elected body has come to an end, the elected body is not in a position to function. Thus, in such a situation Section 315 can be applied even in a situation where the Municipal Council is not functioning on account of expiry of tenure. 31. This being the position, the power of the State Government to appoint the Administrator when the term of the Municipal Council has expired can be read into in Section 315 though it is not expressly contemplated in the provision. 31. This being the position, the power of the State Government to appoint the Administrator when the term of the Municipal Council has expired can be read into in Section 315 though it is not expressly contemplated in the provision. However, such situation does attract Section 315 as the purpose of the provision to provide for an Administrator where the Council is not functioning and such interpretation is necessary to achieve the object of Article 243(U)(1) which provides for tenure of the Municipal Council only for 5 years and not beyond. 32. Accepting the contention that Section 315 does not apply to the situation found in the present petitions, it is to be noticed that the Act of 1964, aims at providing self governance by the people in the Municipal area in connection with certain matters provided in the Act, 1964. However the State’s control over the Municipality is quite evident and pervasive in the provisions of the Act, 1964 referred to below:- 33. The Section 389 is primarily procedural and the substantive power to appoint the Administrator is found in Section 315 of Act, 1964 and considering the overall power of superintendence of the Government over the local body, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that Section 315 does enable the Government to appoint an Administrator in a situation where the municipal council is not functioning. Thus, Section 389 can be interpreted to hold that the overall power of superintendence which is with the Government enables the Government to appoint Administrator by invoking Section 315 read with Section 389 Act, 1964 to achieve the object of Article 243(U)(1) of Constitution of India. 34. This interpretation is permissible keeping in mind the larger good as against the claim of few Councillors whose tenure has come to an end by efflux of time prescribed. 35. At any rate, the petitioners having completed 5 years, do not have a locus to challenge the order appointing the Administrator to contend that the Administrator cannot be appointed. Assuming that the petition is filed by person who is not an Administrator and it is filed by a voter/resident of the local body, then also such voter/resident of the local body cannot urge to extend the tenure of the petitioners beyond 5 years. Assuming that the petition is filed by person who is not an Administrator and it is filed by a voter/resident of the local body, then also such voter/resident of the local body cannot urge to extend the tenure of the petitioners beyond 5 years. Hypothetically, if one is to contend that there is no provision under the Act or the Constitution to appoint the Administrator in a situation contemplated under these provisions, the question that remains to be answered is who has to take care of the Municipal Administration when the councillors cannot act in view of the mandate under Article 243(U)(1) of Constitution of India. In such a situation, it has to be the elected Government in the State and if the decision is taken by such elected Government through the executive or assuming that such decision is taken by the executive and if the Government does not question the said decision, the Court has to hold that the Government has approved the said decision. 36. The Constitutional ethos cannot be trampled to accommodate the petitioners’ prayer to continue as councillors despite expiry of the tenure. 37. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief assailing order appointing Administrator or the order to restrain the State from appointing the Administrator. 38. Since the petitioners in the alternative have sought direction to hold election, the respondent-State and State Election Commission shall take necessary steps to hold election to the Municipal Councils expeditiously. 39. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.