Karnataka High Court
Sooraj S/O Manohar Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD ®
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.106387 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.105638 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.105784 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106273 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
WRIT PETITION NO.106649 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
WRIT PETITION NO.106650 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
WRIT PETITION NO.106716 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
WRIT PETITION NO.106726 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106772 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
WRIT PETITION NO.106773 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106777 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106782 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106791 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106806 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA WRIT PETITION NO.106847 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
RAGHAVENDRA WRIT PETITION NO.106887 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
Location: HIGH WRIT PETITION NO.106895 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA WRIT PETITION NO.106896 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106897 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106902 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106903 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.106917 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.107101 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.107102 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.107103 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.107109 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.106387/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. ALLAUDDIN
S/O HASANMIYA MANIYAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: JUMMA BAZAR, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
2. SRI. PEERAHAMED S/O BABA HUSSAIN GAWARI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: DANDIN PETE, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
3. SRI. ASHOK S/O HANUMANTAPPA MANNANGI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KAMAL BANGADI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI -581118
4. SRI. ATAULLAKHAN
S/O GULZAR AHMEDKHAN PATHAN
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: IDGAH NAGAR, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
5. SRI. FAZAL AHMED KHAN
S/O VALIMAHMADKHAN PATHAN
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: SAVANUR, TAL: SAVANUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581118
6. SRI. SHIVANAND S/O RUDRAGOUDA ARALIKATTI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KHADARABAG ONI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
7. SMT. BHARATI HULLUR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MAVOOR RASTE, SAVANUR, TAL:
SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
8. SMT. PADMAVATI S/O SIDDAPPA DODDAMANI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BHOVI STREET, SAVANUR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
9. SMT. SOFIYA D/O HAJARESAB CHUDIGAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KHADAR BHAG, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
10. SRI. ABDULNASHIR
S/O ABDULHAMID KHIDAMATAGAR
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: LALASHA KATTA ONI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
11. SMT. REKHA W/O NINGAPPA BANAKAPUR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SUNAGAR ONI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
12. SMT. JINAT BANU
W/O ABDUL HAMID HULAGAR
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KAMAL BANGADI ONI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
13. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O HULAGAPPA NEREGAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MALATESH NAGAR, SAVANUR,
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
14. SRI. SANGANABASAVASWAMI KALMATH
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NAVANAGAR, SAVANUR,
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
15. SRI. MAHESH S/O MALLAPPA MUDAGAL
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NEAR GANESHA DEVASTHAN,
DANDINPETE
SAVANUR, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
16. SMT. LILA W/O RAMESH GANIGER
AGE: 92 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLORS
R/AT: KASABA ONI, SAVANUR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
17. SRI. DURGAPPA S/O BHIMANNA GADED
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLORS
R/AT: SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
18. SRI. MAHADEX S/O VITHALARAO MAHENDRAKAR
R/AT: NAVANGAR, SAVANUR
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLORS
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
19. SMT. SHAILA
W/O HANUMANTHAGOUDA MUDIGOUDRU
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLORS
R/AT: GOUDRU ONI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
20. SMT. FARAJANA W/O AJIJKHAN KILLEDAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLORS
R/AT: JUMMA BAZAR, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
21. SMT. AYESHAFARHEEN
W/O MAHMADYYAKUB CHANDUBAYI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: JUMMA BAZAR ONI, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
22. SRI. SADANAND S/O BASAPPA KEMMANAKERI
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MANGALVAR PETE, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
23. SRI. AZEEM BEIG S/O IQBAL BEIG MIRZA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NEAR TMC KHANZADE ONI, SAVANUR,
TAL: SAVANUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581118
24. SMT. KHAMRUNISSA W/O MAULALI PATEL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SAVANUR, TAL: SAVANUR,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: HAVERI-581118
25. SMT. BIBIKUBRA W/O RAHAMATH KHAN DAMBAL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: LAKSHAR BAJAR, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
26. SMT. AMINABI W/O RASHIDAHMAD MAKANADAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MANGALWAR PETE, SAVANUR
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI,
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR APARAJ AND
SRI. A.N. BARIGIDAL., ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SAVANUR, TQ:SHIGGAON
DIST: HAVERI-581110
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
SRI. RAMESH B CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS NO. 1,2 & 4 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER'S TO
COMPLETE THE PERIOD OF 30 MONTHS I.E., (X TERM) EXCLUDING
THE PERIOD FROM 29.04.2023 TO 25.08.2024 I.E., THE PERIOD OF
ADMINISTRATOR BEING IN CHARGE OF SAVANUR TOWN MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL, IN THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.105638/2025
BETWEEN
1. AMOL @ KESHAV GUNKIJAR
AGE MAJOR, OCC PRESIDENT ALNAVA TMC
2. NADEEM MUJAHID CONTRACTOR
AGE MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
3. SHARLET EDWARD BURETTO
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
4. JAILANI ABDUL MUNAF SUDARJI
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
5. TAMEEMAHMED NISARAHMED TERGAON
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
6. YALLARI MARUTI HUBLIKAR
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
7. BHAGYAVATHI AJJAPPA KURUBAR
AGE MAJOR OCC PRESIDENT ALNAVAR TMC
8. YALLAPPA FAKKIRAPPA HULI
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
9. NAUSEEN DASTGIRSAB GORI
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
10 . SUNANDA SRINIVAS KALLU
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
11 . NETRAVATHI BASAVARAJ KADAKOL
AGE MAJOR OCC MEMBER ALNAVAR TMC
ALL ARE R/O PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE
TQ ALNAVAR, DIST: DHARWAD
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: JAGADISH PATIL AND
SRI. SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 01
2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA
R/BY UNDER SECRETARY BALLARI ROAD
SADASHIVNAGAR
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD-580001.
6. THE PATTAN PANCHAYAT
R/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, ALNAVAR
DIST: DHARWAD-581103
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
7. THE TAHASILDAR
ALNAVAR, DIST: DHARWAD-581103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R3, R5 AND R7;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION
DATED 27.01.2025 BEARING NO. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D SO FAR
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.105784/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SULEMANBASHA
S/O MAHAMMEDSAB TARLAGHATTA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NAVANAGAR, B D PATIL PARK,
SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI- 581205
2. SMT. SHEKAVVA W/O RANGAPPA VADDAR
AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: WARD NO.20, VADDAR ONI,
JAYANAGAR, SHIGGAON,
TAL: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581205
3. SRI. NASREENBANU
W/O MUKTYRKHAN TIMMAPUR
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MAKAN ONI, SHIGGAON,
TAL: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI -581205
4. SMT. VASANTHA D/O PUTTAPPA BHAGUR
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NEAR OLD BUS STAND,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
5. SRI. PARSHURAM S/O BHIMAPPA SONNAD
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
6. SRI. MUSTAQ AHMED
S/O IBRAHIMSAB TAHASILDAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SHIGGAON TOWN,
TAL: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581205
7. SMT. REKHA W/O SANGAPPA KANKANWAD
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SUNAGAR STREET, SHIGGAON,
TAL: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581205
8. SMT. ANURADHA W/O SUDHEERA MALAVADE
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: JAYANAGAR, SHIGGAON,
TAL: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581205
9. SMT. SHANTABAI W/O BASAVARJ SUBEDAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: GUDDAD STREET,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
10. SMT. MAHABOBBI W/O ABDULLAHKHAN NIRALGI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NEWPATH MASJID ROAD,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
11. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O GANGAPPA BYAHATTI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NEAR OLD TALUKA OFFICE,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
12. SRI. DAYANAND S/O SHIVAMURTAPPA AKKI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NEAR OLD BUS STAND,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
13. SMT. MUMTAJ GOTAGODI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCE: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
14. SRI. SRIKHANTH S/O SHIVAPPA BULLAKKANAVAR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
15. SRI. SIDDHARTH H PATIL
AGE: YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-581205
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI 581110
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SAVANUR, TQ:SHIGGAON
DIST: HAVERI-581110
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIGGAON
REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
SHIGGAON, TAL: SHIGGAON
DIST: HAVERI-581205
... RESPONDENTS
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., A/W
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4 TO PERMIT THE
PETITIONERS TO COMPLETE PERIOD OF 30 MONTHS i.e., (X TERM)
EXCLUDING THE PERIOD FROM 29.04.2023 TO 23.08.2024 i.e., THE
PERIOD OF ADMINISTRATOR BEING IN CHARGE OF SHIGGAON CMC
APPOINTED U/S 315 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT SO AS
TO BE IN COMPLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES, AND/OR AND
ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106273/2025
BETWEEN
1. SOORAJ S/O MANOHAR NAIK
AGE:38, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O KOTEWADA 148B ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
2. SHEELA W/O MOHAN SHETTI
AGE:59, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O KASABA KENI ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA -581314
3. JAYA W/O BALAKRISHNA NAIK
AGE:51, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O 358. NEAR N.K ROAD
BOBRUWADA ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
4. JAYAPRAKASH S/O GANAPATI NAIK
AGE:42, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O JOGALSE ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
5. ASHOK S/O MANGESH SHEDGERI
AGE:48, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O HULLIDEVARAVADA ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
6. REKHA W/O DINAKAR RAMA GAOKAR
AGE:45, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O HANUMATTA VANDIGE ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
7. SAVITA D/O NAGARAJA NAYAK
AGE: 32, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O SALAGAME HOBALI
BRAHMADEVARAHALLI NITTUR
ALUR HASSAN-573219
8. TARA W/O SURESH NAIK.
AGE:61, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O 254 ASLGADDE
POST SHIRKULI ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
9. VISHWANATH S/O TUKKAPPA NAIK
AGE:45, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O BANDI BAJAR ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
10. MANGESH S/O TOKU AGER
AGE:52, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O 1607 NH 17 PURALAKKIBENA,
SHEDGERI ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581357
11. SHABBIR S/O ABDUL REHAMAN SHAIKH
AGE:50, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O HULIDEVARAVADA, SHEDGERI 926,
ADLUR ANKOLA UTTARA KANNADA-581314
12. NAZNEEN W/O MANSOOR SAYED
AGE: 46, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O 212A NEAR P.M.H SCHOOL ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
13. SHRIDHAR S/O VENKATRAMAN NAIK.
AGE:35, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O AMBARAKODLA ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
14. NAGAPPA S/O RAKU GOUDA
AGE:43, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O PURALAKKIBENA SHEDGERI
VANDIGE UTTARA KANNADA-581357
15. SHANATALA W/O ARUN NADAKARNI
AGE:65, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O HONNEKERI ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581314
16. HEMA W/O GANAPATI AGER
AGE:43, OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O VANDIGE ANKOLA
UTTARA KANNADA-581357
...PETITIONERS
(SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA
NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD
SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560060
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
V.V.TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR-581301
5. PROJECT DIRECTOR
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
M.G. ROAD, KARWAR-581301
6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUMTA SUB-DIVISION
KUMTA-581332 (UTTARA KANNADA)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
7. TAHASILDAR
ANKOLA-581314 (UTTARA KANANDA)
8. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BESIDE KSRTC BUS STAND, SNT ROAD
ANKOLA- 581314
DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., A/W
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R7;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.V. YAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 27.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING NO.
SECK.ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB ANNEXURE-F DETERMINING THE DATE
OF COMPLETION OF TERM AS AT OF COUNCILLORS AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY THE COMMITTEE INSOFAR AS RELATES TO AT
SL. NO 152AS CONTRARY TO SEC. 18 AND SEC. 315 OF KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106649/2025
BETWEEN
1. PRAKASH VITTHAL MURARI
S/O: VITTHAL MURARI, AGE: 63 YEARS
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.27, PRESIDENT
R/O: #2176, GOKAK CITY
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591 307
2. BEBIBATUL A JAMADAR,
W/O: ABDULWAHAB
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.02,
R/O: HALBAG GALLI KILLA, H.NO. 592,
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
3. SHREESHAIL YAKKUNDI
S/O: SOMALINGAPPA AGE: 67 YEARS,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.11,
R/O: #138/4, PLOT NO.66, T/Q: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
4. SHEELA VIRUPAXI BILLUR
W/O: VIRUPAXI, AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.03,
R/O: #1290/A, BANAGAR GALLI, T/Q: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
5. FAHMEEDA DADAPEER SHABASHKHAN
W/O: DADAPEER, AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.04
R/O: SHINDI KHOOT, MUTTON MARKET,
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
6. SHAHANAZBEGAM KHATIB
W/O: AFZALAHMAD, AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.01
R/O: AWATI GALLI, 301/B
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591 307
7. MOHAMMADYUSUF MAHABUBSAHEB ANKALGI
S/O: MAHABUBSAHEB NABISAHEB ANKALGI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.06,
R/O: MAHABUBSAHEB NABISAHEB ANKALGI,
4261, GURUWAR PETH LAKKAD GALLI
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591 307
8. SHIVAPPA RAYAPPA GUDDAKAR
S/O: RAYAPPA GUDDAKAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MEMBER OF WARD NO.07,
R/O: H. NO. 3618/B, BEDAR GALLI
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591 307
9. KUTUBODDIN GOKAK
S/O: MASTANSAHEB
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.08,
R/O: 4614, MOMIN GALLI,
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591307
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
10. TARANNUM ABDULSATTAR SHABASHKHAN
W/O: ABDULSATTAR SHABASHKHAN
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.09,
R/O: H. NO. 3999, SHINDHI KHOOT
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591 307
11. TAYAVVA NARASING SONONE
W/O: NARASING
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.10,
R/O: DHORA GALI, H.NO. 400D
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
12. BHARATI S HATTI
W/O: SHIVANAND HATTI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.12,
R/O: H. NO. 187/PL
3, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
13. ARCHANA B MALAGI
W/O: BASAVARAJ
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.14,
R/O: H.NO. 172, PLOT NO. 29
LET COLLEGE ROAD ADITYA
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
14. JAYANAND HUNACHYALI
S/O: CHANAMALLAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.15,
R/O: H. NO. 201/3A MALLIKARJUN,
PROFESSORS KALYAN HOUSING COLONY
NEAR SIDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
15. VIJAYLAXMI V JATTI
W/O: VIJAYKUMAR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.16,
R/O: NEAR BOMBAY CHAL LAXMI EXTENSION
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
16. SIDDAPPA HUCHCHARAMAGOL
S/O: RAMASIDDAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.17,
R/O: SR NO. 289/3 PLOT NO. 32, KURABAR DADDI
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
17. HARISH BUDIHAL
S/O: RAMAKRISHNA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.18,
R/O: #311 ASHRAY BADAVANE
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
18. JAYALAXMI S SAYANNAVAR
W/O: SIDDALINGAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.19,
R/O: H. NO. 212/1A, OPP. TO COTTAGE HOSPITAL,
FALLS ROAD T/Q: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
19. VANASHREE B SAYANNAVAR
W/O: BASAVARAJ, AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.20,
R/O: R S NO. 216/B PLOT NO 4,
MAHALINGESHWAR NAGAR BEHIND LIC OFFICE
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
20. SHAKHIRA K KHALIF
W/O: KASHIM
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.21,
R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR
H.NO. 221/ALAL
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
21. ABDUL RAHIMAN ABDUL KAREEM DESAI
S/O; ABDUL KAREEM SULEMAN DESAI
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.22,
R/O: H. NO. 189/2/3 PLOT NO 8/9 BASAV NAGAR,
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
22. VENKAVVA SHASTRIGOLLA
S/O: DURGAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD
NO.23, R/O: #221/1A/1A
AMBEDKAR NAGAR
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
23. SANTOSH MANTRANNAVAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD
NO.24, R/O: GOKAK
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591307
24. BASAVARAJ B ARENNAVAR
S/O: BALAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.25,
R/O: H.NO. 3470/2 ADI JAMBAV NAGAR
GOKAK (RURAL), T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
25. BABU KRISHNAPPA MULGUND
S/O; KRISHNAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.26,
R/O: H NO. 2742/13, JAIN GALLI T/Q: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
26. NIRMALA JOTIBA SUBANJI
W/O; JOTIBA, AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.28,
R/O: H. NO. 2074 NEAR SHIVAJI PRATIME MARATHA GALLI,
T/Q: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
27. LAXMI DESHANUR
W/O; BASAVARAJ, AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.29,
R/O: #1710/B1, SOMAWAR PETH T/Q: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA- 591307
28. HANAMANTH KALAMMANAGUDI
S/O: BASAPPA, AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.30,
R/O: #1468, AMBIGER GALLI, T/Q: GOKAK,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
29. PRABHAVATI PUJARI
W/O: SHRISHAIL, AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBER OF WARD NO.31,
R/O: #1495 AMBIGER GALLI T/Q: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591307
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI AND
SRI. VINAYAKUMAR M. SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SUVARNA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
V.V.TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE KARNATAKA ELECTION COMMISSION
REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF ELECTION OFFICER
NO 16 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY RD,
SADASHIVA NAGAR, ARMANE NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560080
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.C. OFFICE, KHADE BAZAR, RAVIWAR PETH
BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590001
5. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK,
T/Q-GOKAK, DIST-BELAGAVI
KARNATAKA-591307
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI COMMUNICATION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED THE 1 ST
DATED 24.06.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING
NO.NAE39MLR2025(E) AS AT ANNEXURE-G DETERMINING THE DATE
OF COMPLETION OF TENURE OF COUNCILORS AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY THE COMMITTEE INSOFAR AS RELATES TO AT
SL.NO.1, AS CONTRARY TO SEC. 18 AND SEC.315 OF KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964, IN SO FAR PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106650/2025
BETWEEN
1. MINAKSHI PRAKASH BAILURKAR
W/O: PRAKASH BAILURKAR
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.06, R/O: 238, GHODE GALLI,
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
2. JAYA GANAPAT BHUTAKI
W/O: GANAPAT BHUTAKI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.18, R/O: 867, RAVIWAR PETH,
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
3. APPAYYA IRAPPA KODOLI
W/O: IRAPPA KODOLI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.02, R/O: 910, RAVIWAR PETH, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
4. LAXMI BASAVARAJ ANKALAGI
W/O: BASAVARAJ ANKALAGI
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.04, R/O: 1242, BARUD GALLI, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
5. VINAYAK KALAL
S/O: SURESH, AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD NO.07,
R/O: #161/2, NINGAPUR GALLI
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
6. LATA AMRUT PATIL
W/O: AMRUT PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD NO. 08,
R/O: 1621, DURGA NAGAR,
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591302
7. SAHERA ABDUL SANADI
W/O: ABDUL SANADI, AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD NO.09,
R/O: 1420/146, ASHRAYA COLONY, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
8. NARAYAN MALHARI OGALE
S/O: MALHARI OGALE, AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD NO. 10,
R/O: 1465, RLY STATION ROAD, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
9. NARAYAN MARUTI MAYEKAR
S/O: MARUTI MAYEKAR, AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD NO. 11,
R/O: 1639/A, VIDYA NAGAR, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591302
10. PRAKASH RAWALAPPA BAILURKAR
S/O: RAWALAPPA BAILURKAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.12, R/O: #238 GHODE GALLI, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
11. HANAMANT GANGAPPA PUJARI
S/O: GANGAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.13, R/O: 1011/1 NAIK GALLI, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
12. SHOBHA SIDDHOJI GAVADO
S/O: SIDDHOJI GAVADO
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.14, R/O: 1586/2A LAXMI NAGAR, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA-591302
13. MEGHA SHIVANAND KUNDARGI
W/O: SHIVANAND KUNDARGI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.15, R/O: 1201, KADOLKAR STREET,
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
14. VINOD DATTATRAYA PATIL
S/O: DATTATRAYA PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.16, R/O: 131/2-D, NAGALING NAGAR, NINGAPUR
GALLI, T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
15. MAZHAR RAFIQ KHANAPURI
S/O: RAFIQ KHANAPURI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.17, R/O: 1569, PARISHWAD ROAD, NEW NAIK
GALLI, T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
16. RAJASHREE GUNDU TOPINKATTI
S/O: GUNDU TOPINKATTI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.19, R/O: 734, GURAV GALLI
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
17. MOHMMED RAFIQUE WARIMANI
S/O: MOHMMED HUSSAIN WARIMANI
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEMBERS OF WARD
NO.20, R/O: 766, JALKA GALLI, KHANAPUR
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
18. FATIMA ABDULLATIF BEPARI
S/O: ABDULLATIF BEPARI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: MEMBERS OF WARD NO.16
R/O: 1385, BAHER GALLI,
T/Q: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM
KARNATAKA- 591302
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR M. SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
UNDER THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SUVARNA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
V.V.TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE KARNATAKA ELECTION COMMISSION
REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF ELECTION OFFICER
NO 16 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
BELLARY RD, SADASHIVA NAGAR,
ARMANE NAGAR, BENGALURU-560080
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.C. OFFICE, KHADE BAZAR, RAVIWAR PETH
BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4;
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A 1ST WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
24.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING
NO.NAE39MLR2025(E) AS AT ANNEXURE-E DETERMINING THE DATE
OF COMPLETION OF TENURE OF COUNCILORS AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY THE COMMITTEE INSOFAR AS RELATES TO AT
SL.NO.1, AS CONTRARY TO SEC.18 AND SEC.315 OF KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964. AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106716/2025
BETWEEN
SHRI. VIJAY S/O. SHRISHAIL BOLANNAVAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC.: PRESIDENT OF TMC, BAILHONGAL,
R/O.: HOUSE NO.421B/9/7/3, MRUTHYUNJAYA NAGAR,
BAILHONGAL, TAL.: BAILHONGAL, DIST.: BELAGAVI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPALITY ADMINISTRATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VIDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
DC OFFICE, BELAGAVI - 590001
4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL,
TAL.: BAILHONGAL, DIST.: BELAGAVI - 591 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, TO R3;
SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. S.V. YAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
27/01/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 BEARING NO.
SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB VIDE ANNEXURE - E;AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106726/2025
BETWEEN
SHRI. RAVIRAJ, S/O CHANDRAHAS ANKOLEKAR
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC.: PRESIDENT OF CMC, KARWAR
R/O.: HOUSE NO. 1472/C NEAR HIGH CHURCH ROAD,
KARWAR, TAL: KARWAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPALITY ADMINISTRATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VIDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
DC OFFICE, BELAGAVI - 590001
4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL,
TAL.: BAILHONGAL, DIST.: BELAGAVI - 591 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, TO R3;
SRI.S.V. YAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
27/01/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 BEARING ANNEXURE E;
NO. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB VIDE AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106772/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. HAMIDUDIN S/O SAYYEDUDDIN ROHILE
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. NAJMUSAKIB S/O NISSARAHMED PALEGAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SRI. SADIQUEAHMED S/O MOHAMMEDHUSAIN ROHILE
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI. MOSIN S/OSAKIB MARUF
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. APSANA W/O ABDULKHADAR ROHILE.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI. DATTA S/O DHONDIBA SANNAKKI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI,TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI. MOHAN S/O VIDHYADHAR LOHAR.
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O DHARMANNA GASTI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. SMT. SUJATA W/O SANJEEV MANAGUTTI.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. SMT. INDRABAI S/O SHANKAR TONNE.
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
11. SRI. MOHAMADHUSAIN
S/O SADIQUE GOREPEERZADE
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
12. SRI. SANJEEV S/O JINAPPA RADARATTI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: BELAGAVI.
13. SMT. SADEKHUN S/O RAFIQAHMED ROHILE.
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
14. SRI. ASFAREENN D/O NUSARATH SAIYYAD
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
15. SRI. MAHEHBOOB S/O HAJISAB JATGAR
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
16. SMT. TAHESIN W/O MOHAMADRAFIK DAU
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI,TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
17. SMT. HASINA W/O TOFIQ CHAMANSHAIKH
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI,TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
18. SMT. RUMANA W/O RAFIQAHMAD PINNITOD
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
19. SMT. MADHURI WO RAJU NIDAGUNDI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
20. VASIQUAEHMED SALAMSAHEB MARUF.
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI,TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
21. SRI. IMAMUDDIN S/O SHIRAJUDDIN SAJAN.
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
22. SMT. GULNAZ W/O ASIFHUSSAIN CHAMANSHAIK
AGE: 3 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
23. SMT. SHABANA WO ALLALKHAN ASHPAQAHEMAD
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N. BARIGIDAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
V.V TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE, 560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.C COMPOUND, BELAGAVI 590001
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKODI, TQ:CHIKKODI
DIST:BELAGAVI 591201.
5. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
6. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REP/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
KUDACHI, TQ RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI -591311
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO:NAE39MLR2025(E)DATED
24.06.2025 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS BEING ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 42& 315 OF THE KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 243U OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106773/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. YALLANGOUDA S/O BASALINGAPAGOUDA PATIL.
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: GOUDARA ONI,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
2. SMT. SHEELA W/O RAJESH BAVIKATTI.
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BAVIKATTI ONI,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-58731.
3. SRI. ABDULRAJAK S/O MOHAMEDSAAB BAGWAN.
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BAVIKATTI ONI,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
4. SRI. MUSTAK S/O DASTAGIRSAB CHIKODI.
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: OIL MILL PLOT,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
5. SRI. SAJJANSAB S/O SHILIMAN PENDARI
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: PENDARI ONI,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
6. SMT. CHANDANI S/O NAGESH NAYAK.
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCE: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: CHINCHALI PLOT,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
7. SRI. PRALHAD S/O ARJUN SANNAKI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: APMC ROAD, BALBAGH
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
8. SMT. SUJATA W/O LAXMAN MANG.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SHIROL PLOT,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
9. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O MAHALINGAYYA HITINMATH.
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: GATNATTI PLOT,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
10. SMT. GODAVARI W/O VIRUPAXI BATT.
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: APMC ROAD,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
11. SRI. BALAVANTHGOUDA S/O LAXMANGOUDA PATIL.
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: APMC ROAD,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
12. SRI. BASAPPA S/O LAXMAN BURUD.
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
R/AT: NEAR URDU SCHOOL,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
13. SRI. SHEKAR S/O BASAPPA ANGADI.
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: VIDYANAGAR,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
14. SMT. SARASWATI W/O CHANAPPA RAMOJI.
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KENGERI MADDI,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
15. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O BALAPPA YARAGATTI.
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SHANTANIKETAN COLONY,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT- 587312.
16. SRI. RAJU S/O LAKAPPA GOUDAPGOL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BUDNI P.D.
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
17. SMT. LAXMI W/O MAHALINGAPPA MUDAPUR.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NEAR HANUMATH TEMPLE,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
18. SMT. SAVITA W/O PRAKASH KOLIGUDDA.
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MAHANTESH NAGAR,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
19. SRI. RAVI S/O KASHINATH JAWALAGI.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: CHINCHALI PLOT,
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
20. SMT. SAVITA W/O CHANNABASU HURKADLI.
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCE: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BASAVA NAGAR.
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312-
21. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O LAKAPPA CHAMKERI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: HUNSHAL ONI.
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
22. SMT. SNEHAL W/O SHIVANAND ANGADI.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT:NEAR MAHALINGESHWAR GUDI,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
23. SMT. BHAVANA S/O SUNILGOUDA PATIL.
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KALPADA,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N. BARIGIDAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST:
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
BAGALKOT-587103.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
JAMAKHANDI, TQ JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REP BY CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
REP BY CHIEF OFFICER,
MAHALINGPUR, TAL: RABKAVI BANHALLTI
DIST: BATGALKOT-587312.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. SURABHI KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO:NAE39MLR2025(E)DATED
24.06.2025 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS BEING ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 42& 315 OF THE KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 243U OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106777/2025
BETWEEN
1. IMAMJAFARKHAN USMANKHAN PATHAN,
AGE 65 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 5, CMC HAVERI
R/O NAGENDRANAMATTI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
2. GIRISH SHIVAPUTRAPPA TUPPAD,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR, WARD NO: 19
CMC MEMBER HAVERI R/O JAYADEV NAGAR,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
3. SMT.SHASHIKALA RAMU MALAGI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR/PRESIDENT,
WARD NO: 7, CMC HAVERI
R/O MANJUNATH NAGAR, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
4. SHIVAYOGI SIDDABASAYYA HULIKANTIMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 11, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR B BLOCK 11TH CROSS,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
5. MALLIKARJUN GURUPAADAPPA SATENAHALLI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 27, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O MANJUNATH NAGAR, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
6. NAGARAJ MALLAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR WARD NO: 1,
CMC HAVERI R/O MANJUNATH NAGAR,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
7. SMT.JAIRABI IQBALAHMED KHAJI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 29, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O MAHABOOB NAGAR, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
8. SMT. KAVITA ADIVEYYA YALAVIGIMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 31, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O ASHWINI NAGAR, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
9. SMT.ZAHEEDABANU @
JAHEEDABANU ABDULRAZAK JAMADAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR, WARD NO: 17
CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O SOLAMATTI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
10. PRASANNA SHEKHAR SINGH DHARWAD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 10, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O VIDYANAGAR 2ND CROSS,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
11. VENKATESH DURGAPPA BIJAPUR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 4, CMC HAVERI
R/O NAGENDRANAMATTI,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
12. PEERSAB MUNAFSAB CHOPDAAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 18 CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
13. RAVI SADANAND DODMANI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 3, CMC HAVERI
R/O IJARILAKAMAPURA, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
14. DADAPEER ISMAILSAB CHUDIGAARA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 23, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O TALAVAR ONI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
15. SANJEEV M PATIL @ NEERALAGI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 6, CMC HAVERI
R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR B BLOCK,
16TH CROSS, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
16. SMT. DEEPA NIRANJAN HERUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 13 CMC, MEMBER HAVERI
R/O SHIVYOGESHWAR NAGAR 3RD CROSS,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
17. SMT.BASAVVA SATISH HAVERI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 14, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O NAGENDRANAMATTI, KORAVARA ONI,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
18. SMT. SAVITA KOTEPPA KAMBALI,
AGE: 35, OCC: COUNCILLOR, WARD NO: 15
CMC MEMBER HAVERI R/O PURADA ONI
(SIDDADEVAPURA),
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
19. SMT.MALLAVVA SHIVAPPA GOURAMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 25, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O PUDARA ONI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
20. SMT.RENUKA RAVI PUTRAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 24 CMC, MEMBER HAVERI
R/O GADDIGERI ONI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
21. SMT.LALITA NAGESH MALAGODA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 2, CMC HAVERI
R/O IJARILAKAMAPURA, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
22. BASAVARAJ BHADRAPPA BELAVADI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 20 CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O TULASI ICON, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
23. SMT.CHENNAMMA BASAVARAJ BYADAGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 9, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O SHIVAJINAGAR 3RD CROSS,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
24. SMT. POOJA BASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 8, VICE PRESIDENT CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O VIDYANAGAR 2ND CROSS,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
25. MANJUNATH @ GANESH T BISHTANNAVAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 22, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O VIDYANAGAR (NEAR AANE PARK),
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
26. SMT. CHAITRA SHAMBHULINGA HATTI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 28, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O AKKIPETE, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
27. SMT. VISHALAKSHI SHREEDHAR AANAVATTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 12 CMC, MEMBER HAVERI
R/O SHIVBASAVA NAGAR 3RD CROSS,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
28. SACHIN SIVASHANKAR DAMBLA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 30, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O HAVERI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
29. UMESH SHEKHAPPA KURUBARA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 21 CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O DEVASAI GALLI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
30. SMT. RAZIYABEGUM HUSSAINSAB DEVIHOSUR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 26, CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O SHIVALING NAGAR, TG/DIST: HAVERI-581110
31. NINGARAJ BASAVARAJ SHIVANNAVAR,
AGE: 40 YEAR'S, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
WARD NO: 16 CMC MEMBER HAVERI
R/O A BLOCK 10TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RPTD, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
V.V.TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
D.C OFFICE, HAVERI-581110
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HAVERI,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110
5. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560080.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. PAVAN B. DODATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION/DIRECTION DTD: 27-01-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E
BEARING NO.SECK /ULB/OTHR /1/ 2025-ULB ISSUED/ADDRESSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO RESPONDENT NO.1, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106782/2025
BETWEEN
1. SMT. NEELAVVA
W/O. PAWADAPPA VADDIGERI
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER TMC NARGUND,
R/O. WARD NO. 15, NARGUND
DIST: GADAG 582 207
2. CHANDRAGOUDA
KENCHANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 05 NARGUND
DIST: GADAG 582 207
3. SUNIL
S/O. SANGAPPA KUSHTAGI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 01 NARGUND.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: GADAG 582 207
4. SMT. MANJULA
W/O. PRAKASH PATTANASHETTI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 02, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
5. SMT. RAJESHWARI
W/O. HANUMANTH HAVALDAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 06, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
6. RAJIYABEGAUM
W/O. HASANSAB TAHASILDAR,
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 07, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
7. SMT. ANNAPURNA
W/O. SIDDAPPA YALIGAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 08, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
8. PRASHANT
S/O. LAXMANARAO JOSHI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 10, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
9. SMT. BHAVANA
W/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 12, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
10. RACHANGOUDA
S/O. FAKKIRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 13, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
11. DEVARAJ
S/O. BHARAMOJI KALAL,
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 16, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
12. FAKKIRAPPA
S/O. SHIVANAND HADIMANI, AGE:45 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 17, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
13. SMT. KAVITA
W/O. MARUTI ARBANAD,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 18, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
14. SMT. KASHAVVA
W/O. BASAPPA MALAGI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 20, NARGUND.
DIST: GADAG 582 207
15. HUSENSAB
S/O. NANNESAB GOTUR,
AGE: 46YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 21, NARGUND.
16. SMT. RENAVVA
W/O. SURESH KALLARI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, TMC NARGUND
R/O. WARD NO. 22, NARGUND.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VIDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GADAG DIST. GADAG 582 101
4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
NARGUND, DIST. GADAG 582 207
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED:
26.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING
NO. NO.A.E 39 MLR 2025 (Ε) VIDE ANNEXURE D AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106791/2025
BETWEEN
1. SMT. SHILPA W/O GAUTAM RODAKAR.
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/AT: DEVARAJ NAGAR,
TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
2. SMT. NASAREENBANU W/O RAJESAB NAGARJI.
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT,
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
R/AT: DEVARAJ NAGAR,
TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
3. SRI. KUMAR S/O SHRIPATI SARIKAR.
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
4. SRI. SHETTAPPA S/O BANATTEPPA SUNAGAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: WARD NO. 15, TERDAL,
TAL: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
5. SRI. SURESH S/O PARAPPA KABADAGI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: KABADAGI GALLI, TERDAL,
TAL: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
6. SRI. ADINATH S/O JINNAPPA SAPTASAGAR.
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
7. SRI. NOOREISLAM S/O MODINSAB ATARAUT.
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
8. SRI. RUSTUM S/O ISMAIL NIPPANI.
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
9. SRI. LAXMAN S/O SHIVANAPPA NAYAK.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
10. SRI. FAIZULLA S/O ALLABAKSH INAMADAR.
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
11. SRI. MOULALLI S/O BUDANSAB CHATTARABANAKOTI.
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
12. SRI. SANTOSH S/O ALLAPPA JAMAKHANDI.
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
13. SMT. SANGITA S/O KEDARI PATIL.
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
14. SMT. ROOPA W/O SHANKAR KUMBAR.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
15. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O BHIMAPPA VADDAR.
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
16. SMT. AKKUTAYI W/O UJALANTH KAMBALE.
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
17. SRI. VINAYAK S/O RAMAKRISHNA BANKAPUR.
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
18. SRI. KASHINATH N RATHOD.
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
19. SRI. SACHIN S/O DONDIBA KODATHE.
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
20. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O RAMAPPA GHASTI.
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERADAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
21. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O SADASHIV HOSAMANI.
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
22. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O RUDRAPPA KALTHIPI.
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: TERDAL, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
23. SMT. KUSHMANDINI W/O ALLAPPA BABGOND.
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587315.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N. BARIGIDAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
V.V TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE, 560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REP/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT -587315.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO: NAE39MLR2025(E) DATED
26.03.2025 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS BEING ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 42 & 315 OF THE KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 243U OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106806/2025
BETWEEN
1. MANJUNATH S/O MALLAPPA SOPPIN
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O 9TH WARD, RENUKA NAGAR,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
2. SMT. GADIGI GURUBASAMMA,
W/O J. MALLIKARJUNA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O H.NO. 287, BEHIND KALLESWARA
TEMPLE, FORT,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
3. SMT. JYOTHI H.,
W/O PAVAN KUMAR H.,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O H.NO. 327, 3RD WARD, FORT,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
4. LEELA W/O DR. PRAKASH ATAWALIGI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O H.NO. 5, KODIHALLI ONI,
4TH WARD, FORT,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
5. A. J. VEERESH, S/O A.C. JAYANNA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O H.NO. 23, 5TH WARD, JAINAR ONI,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
6. SANTAVVA W/O YALLAPPA KADAL,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O 6TH WARD, HALLAD ROAD,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
7. SMT. SHOBHA, W/O SHANKARAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/O M.P.PRAKASH NAGAR,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
8. SMT. JYOTHI MALLANNA, W/O SHANTAVEERAPPA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O 1ST WARD, WARD, FORT,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
9. MANJUNATH J., S/O JAYAKUMAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O 10TH WARD, SOPPINAKALAMMA LAYOUT,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
10. SMT. B.RENUKAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/O 16TH WARD,
NEAR URDU SCHOOL,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
11. CHANDRA NAIK, S/O NANYA NAIK,
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/O 17TH WARD,
VEERABHADRESHWARA LAYOUT,
HUVINA HADAGALI
12. SARJAPPANAVAR SHAFIULLA,
S/O SABUDDIN SAAB,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O 13TH WARD, HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
13. SMT. GANTI JAMALABI,
W/O GANTI KALANDER SAAB,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/O 11TH WARD,
BEHIND TALUK LIBRARY,
HUVINA HADAGALI-583219
14. GOUS MODIN WARAD,
S/O WARAD KALANDER SAAB,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC., COUNCILLOR, TMC,
RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, HUVINA HADAGADI 563219
15. ARANI MOHAMMED RAFI,
S/O ARANI JUMAL SAAB,
AGE: 95 YEARS, OSE: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA MADAGALI, R/E BLO, 441,
16TH WARD, HUVINA HADAGALI 582219
16 E.T.MALATESH S/O E.T. SHAMBHUNATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCE: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/8 11.NO. 817,
17TH WARD, HUVINA MADAGADI 583219
17. SMT. NIRMALA, W/O PARAMESHWARISH R.,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCE: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O RAJEEV NAGAR, HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
18 AIGOL SURESH KUMAR, S/O L. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCE; COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/E MAIN ROAD,
HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
19. SMT. VISHALAKSHI, W/O VEERANNA(@ANGADI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCE. COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI, R/O H.NO. 826/79 B,
5TH WARD, RAMASWAMI LAYOUT,
HUVINA HADAGALL 583219
20. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O RAMAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCE.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI, R/O
MAIN ROAD, HUVINAHADAGALI 583219
21. THIMMAPPA, 5/O VENKAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCE.: COUNCILLOR,
TMC, HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O 22ND WARD, NEAR KATAKARA ONI,
RAMADEVARAGUDI, HUVINA
HADAGALL 583219
22. SMT. DURGAVVA, D/O SANNA SAKRAVVA
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC.: COUNCILLOR, TMC,
HUVINA HADAGALI,
R/O H.NO. 686, NEW HARIJAN COLONY,
17TH WARD, HUVINA HADAGALI 583219
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KIRAN ANGADI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, HOSAPETE - 583201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HARAPANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT - 583131.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO.16, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560080
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO. NA AA EE 39 MLR 2025(E)
DATED 26.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE 'G' INSOFAR AS IT PROPOSES
TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS TO TMC, HUVINAHADAGALI BEFORE
COMPLETION OF THE 30-MONTH TENURE OF THE PRESIDENT AND
VICE-PRESIDENT ELECTED ON 20.02.2025 AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106847/2025
BETWEEN
B REKHA W/O B RAMESH
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC:
R/O.: HOUSE NO. 66, 8TH WARD,
KUDLIGI ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
KOTTUR, KUDLIGI, BELLARY- 583 134
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH MATHAPATI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
V.V. TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D. C OFFICE, T. B. DAM
HOSAPETE-583225
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
4. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYAT, KOTTURU
HARAPANAHALLI ROAD, NEAR IB
KOTTURU-583134, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
5. THE KARNATAKA ELECTION COMMISSION
REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER,
THE OFFICE OF ELECTION OFFICER.
NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGAR,
ARAMANE NAGAR, BENGALURU , KARANATAKA-560080
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
26.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-F), ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BEARING NO.NA AA I 39 MLR 2025(I), AS BEING ARBITRARY,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 18, 315, 316,
AND 318 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964, AND
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 243-U OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106887/2025
BETWEEN
1. M FATEEMA
W/O SHAKSHAVALI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC; PRESIDENT
R/O 20TH WARD, BANGERI
HARAPANAHALLI-583131
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT
2. L DADAPEER
S/O LATI MAHABOOBSAB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
OCC TMC MEMBER
R/O 11TH WARD
SUNAGARAGERI
HARAPANAHALLI-583131
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.
3. D. ABDUL REHEMANSAB,
S/O YUSUF SAB,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS;
OCC TMC MEMBER
R/O PATANGERI, 13TH WARD,
HARAPANAHALLI-583131
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT
4. MANJUNATH S IJANTAKAR
S/O SHANKA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC;TMC MEMBER
R/O 18TH WARD,
KOTHOR ROAD,
HARAPANAHALLI-583131
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT
5. T VENKATESH
S/O T UCHENGEMMA
AGED ABOUT52 YEARS,
OCC TMC MEMBER,
R/O 26TH WARD, VALMIKINAGAR
ARASIKER ROAD,
HARAPANAHALLI-583131
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT,
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SUVARNA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
V.V.TOWER, DR. B. R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF ELECTION OFFICER
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HOSEPETE 583201
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT
5. THE TAHASHILDAR
HARAPANAHALLI-58313
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT
6. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARAPANAHALLI-583131
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT
7. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
NO. 16; 2ND & 3RD FLOOR
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BENGALURU-5600 80.
(AMENDMEND CARRIED OUT VIDE
ORDER DATED 16.09.2025)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
27-01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING
NO.SECK/ ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB AS AT ANNEXURE-F DETERMINING
THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF TENURE OF COUNCILORS AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY THE COMMITTEE INSOFAR AS RELATES TO AT
SL.NO. 195, AS CONTRARY TO SEC.18 AND SEC.315 OF KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 AND ETC.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.106895/2025
BETWEEN
1. CHAMPAK RAMESH BISALAHALLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 3, KANCHAGAR ONI,
RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SHASHIDHAR HUCCHAPPA BASENAYAK,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 20, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3. PRAKASH DURGAPPA PUJAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 02, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. TRIVENI N PAWAD,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 22, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
5. GANGAMMA ISHWARAPPA HAVANUR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 5, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
6. MANJULADEVI S HATTI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 24, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
7. RAMAPPA KARABASAPPA KARADENNAVAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 35, RANEBENNUR-581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
8. NOORULLA SAIYED USMANSAB KHAJI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 12, RANEBENNUR-581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
9. HABIBULLA KAMBALI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 21, RANEBENNUR-581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
10. MALLIKARJUN BASAVARAJAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 10,
RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
11. RATNAVVA HANUMANT PUJAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 15, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TG: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
12. MEHABOOB ANWARSAB MULLA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 19, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
13. HONNAVVA BASAVANNEPPA KATI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 29, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
14. KASTURI SIDDAPPA CHIKKABIDARI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 4, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
15. SUMANGALA MRUNTYUNJAY PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 6, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
16. ABDULGAFARKAN H IRANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 13, RANEBENNUR - 581 115, TQ:
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
17. SUMA RAVI HUCCHHAGONDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 26, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
18. ARIPAKAN NISAR AHMAD SOUDAGAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 14, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
19. SUVARNA GIRISH SURALIKERIMATH,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 25, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
20. SIDDAPPA BHARAMMAPPA BAGILADAVAR,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 27, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
21. PUTTAPPA GUDDAPPA MARIYAMANAVAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 31, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
22. JAYASHRI KRISHNAJIRAO PISE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 23, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
23. HANAMANTHAPPA MAHESHWARAPPA HEDDERI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 33, RANEBENNUR 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
24. SHEKHAPPA BASAPPA HOSAGOUDR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 30, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
25. NINGAPPA BHIMAPPA KODIHALLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 34, RANEBENNUR 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
26. HUCCHHAPPA KARIYAPPA MEDLERI,
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 28, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
27. PRAKASH SHEKHAPPA BURADIKATTI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 32, RANEBENNUR 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
28. ROOPA RAGHAVENDRA CHINNIKATTI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 01, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
29. KAVITA BASAVARAJ HEDDERI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 17, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
30. PRABHAVATI TILAVALLI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 07,
RANEBENNUR 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
31. PANDURANG VIJAPPA GANGAVATHI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 16, RANEBENNUR 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
32. NAGARAJ RAMAPPA ADMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 8, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
33. GURURAJ SHIVANNA TILAVALLI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 11, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
34. NEELAMMA BASAVARAJ MAKANOOR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 18,
RANEBENNUR - 581 115, TQ:
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
35. NAGENDRASA MADUSA PAWAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O: WARD NO. 09, RANEBENNUR - 581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL AND
SRI. SAJID GOODWALA., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01,
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 01,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER,
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560001,
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI 581110, HAVERI DISTRICT,
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI 581110, HAVERI DISTRICT,
6. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF-OFFICE,
RANEBENNUR - 581 115, HAVERI DISTRICT,
7. THE TAHASILDAR,
RANEBENNUR 581 115,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5 & R7;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB DATED
27/01/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106896/2025
BETWEEN
1. BALACHANDRA PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 20, BYADAGI - 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. HANUMANTHAPPA HONNAPPA MYAGERI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 15, BYADAGI - 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
3. RAMANNA HANUMANTHAPPA KODIHALLI,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 05, BYADAGI - 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
4. SUBHAS DURAGESH MALAGI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 16, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
5. BASAVANNEPPA MAHADEVAPPA CHATRAD,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 9, BYADAGI - 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
6. IRANNA BANAKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
R/O: WARD NO. 17, BYADAGI - 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
7. MAHAMMADRAFIK MUDAGAL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 18, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
8. VINAYAKUMAR LINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 12, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
9. MALLAVVA PATIL,
R/O: WARD NO. 21, BYADAGI 581106
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
10. KAMALAWWA SANGAMESHWAR KURAKUNDI,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 22,
BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
11. RESHMA SHEK,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 23, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
12. KALAVATI MOUNESH BADIGER,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 01, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
13. SHIVAYOGI MAHADEVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 02, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
14. MANGALA PARASAPPA GEJJIHALLI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER.
R/O: WARD NO. 03, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
15. JAMILA SARAPARAJ HERAKAL,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 10, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
16. KAVITA KOTRAYYA SOPPINAMATH,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 07, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
17. FAKKIRAVVA CHALAVADI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 19, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
18. CHANNAVEERAPPA KURAVATTEPA SHETTAR,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 06, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
19. GAYATRI GAJANAN RAYAKAR,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 04, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
20. SAROJA PRAKASH ULLAGADDI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O: WARD NO. 14, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
21. MANJUNATH SHEKHAPPA BARKI,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 08, BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
22. SHANKAR KUSAGOOR,
OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 13,
BYADAGI 581106
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
23. MAHABOOB SAIYADPIR AGASANAHALLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O: WARD NO. 11,
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
BYADAGI 581106,
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL AND
SRI. SAJID GOODWALA., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01,
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 01,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER,
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560001,
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI 581110, HAVERI DISTRICT,
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI 581110, HAVERI DISTRICT,
6. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF-OFFICE,
RANEBENNUR - 581 115, HAVERI DISTRICT,
7. THE TAHASILDAR,
RANEBENNUR 581 115,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5 & R7;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
SRI. HANUMATHAREDDY SAHUKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
IN W.P.NO.106897/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SHIVAPPANAIK KAAVALLI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 1
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
2. SMT. LEELAVATI W/O PRABHAKAR
AGE: YEARS, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 1
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
3. SRI. SAYED SUKUR S/O A.M. BASHA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 5
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
4. M. SHARADA BAI D/O MITYANAIK
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 2
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
5. SMT. BANGARI HULEGAMMA W/O B. SOMANNA
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 9
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
6. SMT. G. LAXMIDEVI W/O G. BASAVARAJ
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 3
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
7. SMT. H. NINGAMMA W/O SANNA KUTLAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 4
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
8. SRI. TALASAD VENKATESH
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 6
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
9. SACHIN KUMAR Κ.Η.Μ. S/O
THIPPESWAMY K.H.M.
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 8
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
10. SRI. SIRIBI MANJUNATH S/O MARIYAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 10
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA- 583135.
11. SMT. D. CHAVDAMMA
D/O HANAMAVVA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 14
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
12. SMT. SARASWATI B
W/O RAGHAVENDRA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 12
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
13. SRI. P. CHANDRAPPA
D/O NAGAMMA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 13
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA- 583135.
14. SMT. RENUKA S DURAGESH
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 14
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
15. SMT. URAMMA W/O LATE HANUMATAPPA
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 15
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
16. SRI. K. ESHAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA K.
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 16.
TAK: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135
17. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/ BASAPPA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 17
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
18. SMT. V. SARASWATI W/O V. RAMESH
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 18
SSTAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA- 583135.
19. SRI. POORYANAIK S/O BADYANAIK
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 19
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA- 583135.
20. SRI. BASUNAIK S/O REKHYANAIK
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/O: PATTAN PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, WARD NO. 20
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYNAGARA-583135.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL AND
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
SRI. SAJID GOODWALA., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01,
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 01,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER,
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560001,
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYANAGAR, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYANAGAR, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
6. THE PATTAN PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF-OFFICE,
KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583135.
7. THE TAHASILDAR,
KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583135.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5 & R7;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB DATED
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
27/01/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106902/2025
BETWEEN
SMT. VEENA
W/O JAGADISH KAVATAGIMATH
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHIKODI,
R/O: H. NO. 898, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591201.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
V.V. TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. -590001
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 01,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI, -590001
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
DURATION OF THE CURRENCY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. NAE 48
MLR 2023 DATED 25/05/2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
MARKED AT ANNEXURE APPOINTING ADMINISTRATOR TO 4TH
RESPONDENT CHIKODI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FROM 19/04/2023 TO
12/09/2024 SHALL NOT USURP THE TOTAL FIVE YEARS OF THE
TENURE OF THE COUNCILLORS AND 30 MONTHS TENURE OF
PETITIONER AS PRESIDENT AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106903/2025
BETWEEN
1. NAHIN W/O AMINUDDIN MULLA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: WARD NO. 12, NEAR URDU SCHOOL
KUSHTAGI, TQ: KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL - 583277
2. JYOTI W/O RAMESH CHALUVADI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: WARD NO. 14, TQ: KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPA 583277
3. VIJAYALAXMI W/O MANJUNATH KATTIMANI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.51, HANAMASAGARA ROAD,
SHREE SAYIBABA COLONY, TQ: KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPA 583277
4. AKAMAHADEVI W/O BASAVARAJ NAYAKVADI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: WARD NO. 16, NAYAKVADI ONI,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
5. RAJESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA BAILAPATTAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: WARD NO.2, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277
6. HANUMAVVA W/O AYYAPPA KORI
AGE: 70 YEARS,
R/O: WARD NO.9, DURGA COLONY,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL - 583277
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
7. NAGARAJ S/O SAMBULINGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 44 YEARS,
R/O: WARD NO.4, INDRA NAGAR,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL - 583277
8. VEERESHGOUDA
S/O SHIVANANADAGOUDA BEDAVATTI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.4,
VISHNU TIRTHA NAGAR
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
9. MAHABOBSAB S/O IMAMASAB KAMMAR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
R/O: WARD NO.23, TEGGINA ONI
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL - 583277
10. GEETA W/O SHARANAPPA TURKANI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: WARD NO.6, VIDYANAGAR
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
11. BASAVARAJ S/O TIPPANNA BUDAKUNTI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: NEAR FOREST OFFICE, GANDHINAGAR
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
12. JAREENA BEGUM W/O BANDAGISAB KAIGADI
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: WARD NO. 13, MULLAR ONI
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
13. SYED KHAJA MAINUDDIN
S/O SYED IBRAHHIMSAB MULLA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: H/NO.3391, MADINA GALLI, WARD NO.8
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
14. GEETA W/O MAHESH KOLLURU
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: WARD NO.3, ANNADANESHAVARA NAGARA,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL - 583277
15. ACHAR S/O JAITIRTHA GURACHAR
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: YEARS,
WARD NO.18,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
16. LAXMI W/O RAMAESH SANGATI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: WARD NO. 10, DURGA COLONY
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583277
17. AMBANNA S/O MARIYAPPA BANJANTRI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: WARD NO. 19,
TQ: KUSHTAGI DIST: KOPPA 583277
18. GANGADHAR SWAMI
S/O KARIBASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC: ,
R/O: WARD NO.21, TEGGINA ONI
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277
19. MANTESH S/O SHANKRAPPA KHALBHAGI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT TMC
KUSHTAGI, R/O: WARD NO.23,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPA 583277
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SADIQALI N. GOODWALA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL
DIST: KOPPAL - 583231
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL
DIST: KOPPAL 583231
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
4. THE KUSHTAGI TOWN MUNICIPALITY
KUSHATGI-583277
BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
5) STATE ELECTION COMMISION
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU
REP BY ITS
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BALAGERIMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION
BEARING NO.SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB DATED 27.01.2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE- C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY. AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.106917/2025
BETWEEN
RADHAKRISHNA
S/O RAMA NAIK,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O: 39/A, K.B.ROAD, YELLAPUR,
TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTARKANNADA-581359.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VYAS DESAI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.-560001
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARKANNADA,
KARWAR DIST: UTTARKANNADA 581301.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, YELLAPUR
DIST; UTTARKANNADA - 581359
5. THE TAHASHILDAR, YELLAPUR
DIST; UTTARKANNADA 581359
6. THE TOWN PANCHAYAT, YELLAPUR
REP BY CHIEF OFFICER,
DIST; UTTARKANNADA - 581359
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.V. YAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1,2 & 3 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER
TO COMPLETE PERIOD OF 30 MONTHS EXCLUDING THE PERIOD
FROM 05/05/2023 TO 21.08.2024 I.E., THE PERIOD OF
ADMINISTRATOR BEING IN CHARGE OF YELLAPUR TOWN
PANCHAYAT APPOINTED U/S 315 OF THE KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT SO AS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES, AND/OR AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.107101/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. MANORAMA S/O MAHESH SUGATE
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
2. SRI. JAYAPRAKASH S/O NAGAPPA KARAJAGI.
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
3. SRI. SUNIL S/O ANNASAHEB PARVATRAO.
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
4. SMT. SEVANTHA W/O SHIVAMURTI KABBURI.
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
5. SRI. SEEMA W/O SHRIKANT HATANURI.
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
6. SRI. SACHIN S/O BABASAHEB BHOPALE.
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
7. SRI. VIVEK S/O RAMCHANDRA KWALLI.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
8. SMT. PARVATHI RUPALAPPA NAIK
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
9. SRI. PRAMOD S/O APPASAHEB HOSAMANI.
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: LOUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
10. SMT. SUCHITA W/O SHRIKANT PARIT.
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
11. SRI. CHIDANAND S/O APPASAHEB KARADANNAVAR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
12. SMT. SAVITHA W/O SANJAY NASHTI.
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
13. SRI. SANJAY S/O DUNDAPPA NASHTI.
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC:COUNCILLOR.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
14. SRI. UMESH 8/O RAMESH KAMBALE.
AGE: 49 YEARS, 000 COUNCI
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
15. SRI. AMAR S/O MADUKARNALAVADE.
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUN LLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
16. SMT. SHRIVIDYA W/O RAJU BAMBARE.
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCELLO
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
17. SMT. SANGEETA W/O PRASHANT KOLI.
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC COUNCILLOR.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
18. SRI. VINOD S/O SHANKAR NAIK.
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
19. SRI. AJITH S/O ASHOK KARAJAGI.
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
20. SRI. SHANKERAPPA S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPASHIRKOLI.
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR.
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
21. SRI. APPAJI S/O KEMPANNA MARADI.
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC:COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
22. SMT. LATHA W/O PARASHURAM MARADI.
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COMICILIOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
23. SMT. RIZWANA W/O MEHABOOB RAMPURE.
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N. BARIGIDAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
V.V TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE, 560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.C COMPOUND, BELAGAVI 590001
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REP/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
SANKESHWAR, TAL: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO: NAE39MLR2025(E) DATED
24.06.2025 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS BEING ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 18, 42 & 315 OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ACT READ WITH ARTICLE
243U OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.107102/2025
BETWEEN
1. SRI. JEEVAN S/O RAMCHAND PAWAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: GUDDADKERI ONI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
2. SMT. FARIDABEGAM W/O USMANSAB BABARACHI.
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KALAL STREET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
3. SRI. HANAMANTHAPPA S/O LAKHSMAN WALIKAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: GOUDRA ONI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
4. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O GANGADHAR JADHAV
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: NEAR NAGALINGASWAMI MATH,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
5. SRI. BABAJAN S/O SIDDILASHYA MAKANDAR
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: MAHIBOOB NAGAR,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
6. SRI. PRAKASH S/O BASAPPA SHIGLIYAVER
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: DESAI PET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
7. SRI. MANTESH S/O FAKKIRAPPA BHOVI.
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BHOVI STREET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
8. SRI. MODINASAB S/O MAKTHUMSAB SHIRUR.
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: JATAGAD STREET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
9. SMT. VIJAYA W/O SHRIKANT KALAL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: HUBLI STREET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
10. SMT. HUSENABI W/O IMAMASAB DHARWAD.
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KALLIMATH STREET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
11. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O SANKARAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: WARD NO.1,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
12. SMT. MANJULA W/O EKANATH JADHAV. BI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
NAVALGUND, TAI: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
13. SMT. MUDAKAVVA W/O BIRAPPABENDIGERI.
AGE: 63 YEARS. OCE: COUNCILOR
R/AT: MANJUNATH NAGAR,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
14. SMT. JYOTI W/ KRISHNAPPA GOLLAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: GOLLAR ONI.
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
15. SMT. KHAIRUNBI W/O HAJARESABNASHIPUDI.
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: NASHIPUDI ONI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
16. SRI.SHARANAPPA S HAKKARAKI.
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: KUMBAR STREET,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
17. SRI. MAHANTESH 3/0 KRISHNAJI KALAL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: KALAL ONI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
18. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O KRISHNA BENDIGERI.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: JAMKHAN GALLI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
19. SRI. BASAVARAJ S KATTIMANI.
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/AT: VADDAR ONI, NAVALGUND,
TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
20. SRI. APPANNA S/O BHAGAPPAHALLAD.
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: KALIMATH ONI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
21. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O MANJUNATH SUNAGAR.
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: BASAVESHWAR ONI,
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
22. SRI. SURESH S/O ADIVEPPA METI.
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR
R/AT: HALLAD STREET, NAVALGUND,
TAL: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD 582208.
23. SRI. SHIVANAND S/O FAKIRAPPATADASI.
AGED: 44, TEGGINKERI STREET, TAL: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N. BARIGIDAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
V.V TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE, 560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UB HILL, NEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA CIRCLE,
MALMADDI, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD 580001.
5. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
6. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REP/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
NAVALGUND, TAL: NAVALGUND
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION IN SO FAR
AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING
NO: NAE39MLR2025(E) DATED 24.06.2025 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-
F AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 18 &
315 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ACT READ
WITH ARTICLE 243U OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.107103/2025
BETWEEN
1. SMT. SONAL W/O RAJESH KOTHADIYA
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
2. SRI. SANTOSH S/O HINDURAV SANGAVKAR.
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O KAMALAKAR GIRE.
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
4. SRI. RAJENDRA S/O SHANTILAL SHAH.
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
5. SMT. KAVERI W/O SAGAR MIRJE.
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
6. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O MAHESH SURYAVANSHI.
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
7. SRI. SADDAM S/O SALIM NAGARJI.
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
8. SRI. VILAS S/O LAKSHMAN GADIVADDAR.
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
9. SMT. SUNITA W/O VILAS GADDIVADDAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
10. SRI. JAYAWANT GANGARAM BHATALE.
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
11. SMT. NEETA S/O VINOD BAGADE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
12. SMT. RANJANA W/O RAVINDRA INGAVALE.
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
13. SMT. GEETA W/O SUNIL PATIL.
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
14. SMT. JASMIN W/O JUBER BAGBAN.
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCE: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
15. SMT. ARUNA W/O ABHINANDAN MUDUKUDE.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
16. SMT. SUJATA W/O RAVINDRA KADAM.
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N. BARIGIDAD., ADVOCATE)
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
V.V TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE, 560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.C COMPOUND, BELAGAVI 590001
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560080.
5. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REP/BY ITS COMMISSIONER
NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI -591237
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING
NO: NAE39MLR2025(E) DATED 24.06.2025 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-
F AS BEING ARBITRARY. ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 18,
42 & 315 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ACT READ
WITH ARTICLE 243U OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND ETC.
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.107109/2025
BETWEEN
SMT. JYOTI GOVINAKOPPA
W/O. RAGHAVENDRA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC.: PRESIDENT OF TMC,
GULEDAGUDDA,
R/O.: WARD NO.3, GULEDAGUDDA,
TAL.: GULEDAGUDDA, DIST.: BAGALKOTE
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ.S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPALITY ADMINISTRATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VIDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE,
DC OFFICE, BAGALKOTE - 587 001
4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GULEDAGUDDA,
TAL.: GULEDAGUDDA, DIST.: BAGALKOTE 587 203
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M.,AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
27/01/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 BEARING NO.
SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB VIDE ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106387/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1,2 & 4 to permit
the Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 29.04.2023 to 25.08.2024
i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of Savanur
Town Municipal Council, in the spirit of democratic values
and basic structure of the Constitution of India, and/or,
Prayer AA) declare that the period of administrator being in
charge of Savanur, Municipality between 29.4.2023 to
23.8.2024 is ultra-vires the Article 243U of the Constitution
of India and violation of democratic principles, the 30
months period is commence from election of President for
the Xth term and to compute the period of 5 years excluding
the period between 29.4.2023 to 23.8.2024.
b. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
2. The Petitioners in W.P.No.105638/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned notification dated 27.01.2025 bearing No.
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB passed by Respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-D so far petitioner is concerned.
b. Grant any other relief, which is the Hon'ble Court medium fit
in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The Petitioners in W.P.No.105784/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents no. 1,2 &
4 to permit the petitioners to complete period of 30 months
i.e, (X term) excluding the period from 29.04.2023 to
23.08.2024 i.e, the period of Administrator being in charge of
Shiggaon CMC appointed u/s 315 of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act so as to be in compliance of democratic
principles and/or,
b. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
4. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106273/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
order to quash the impugned communication dated
27.01.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent authority bearing
No. SECK.ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB Annexure-F determining
the date of completion of term as at of councillors and
consequentially the committee insofar as relates to at Sl. no
152as contrary to sec. 18 and sec. 315 of Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964.
b) Declare that the duration of the currency of the order
dated 08-05-2023 appointing administrator to Ankola Town
Municipal Council from 08-05-2023 to 19.08.2024 shall not
usurp the total five years of the term of the Councillors.
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
c) Issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1
and 2 to calculate the five years terms of the council
excluding the period from 08-05-2023 to 19.08.2024 and
further be directed that term of Ankola Town Municipal
Council would continue until completion of 30 months term
by considering the grievance of the Petitioners vide
representations dated 28-07-2025 as at annexure-H and J
submitted to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, in the
interest of justice and equity.
d) Issue any writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and
in the interest of justice.
5. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106649/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari communication to quash the
impugned the 1 St dated 24.06.2025 issued by Respondent
authority bearing No.NAE39MLR2025(E) as at Annexure-G
determining the date of completion of tenure of Councilors
and consequentially the Committee insofar as relates to at
Sl.No.1, as contrary to Sec. 18 and Sec.315 of Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964, In so far petitioners are concerned.
b) Declare that the duration of the currency of the order
dated 25.05.2023 appointing Administrator to Gokak City
Municipal Council from 25.05.2023 to 05.08.2024 shall not
usurp the total five years of the tenure of the Councilors.
c) Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1
and 2 to calculate the five years term of the Council
excluding the period from 25.05.2023 to 05.08.2024 and
further be directed that term of Gokak City Municipal Council
would continue until completion of 30 months tenure by
considering the grievance of the Petitioners vide
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
representation dated 29.08.2025 as at Annexure-H to H-3,
in the interest of justice and equity.
d) Issue any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may
deem fit in the fact and circumstance of the case and in the
interest of justice.
6. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106650/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a 1st Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
communication dated 24.06.2025 issued by the Respondent
authority bearing No.NAE39MLR2025(E) as at Annexure-E
determining the date of completion of tenure of Councilors
and consequentially the Committee insofar as relates to at
Sl.No.1, as contrary to Sec.18 and Sec.315 of Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964.
b) Declare that the duration of the currency of the order
dated 25.05.2023 appointing Administrator to Town
Panchayat Khanapur from 25.05.2023 to 05.08.2024 shall
not usurp the total five years of the tenure of the Councilors.
c) Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1
and 2 to calculate the five years term of the Council
excluding the period from 25.05.2023 to 05.08.2024 and
further be directed that term of Town Panchayat Khanapur
would continue until completion of 30 months tenure by
considering the grievance of the Petitioners vide
representation as per Annexure-F to F-18, in the interest of
justice and equity.
d) Issue any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may
deem fit in the fact and circumstance of the case and in the
interest of justice.
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
7. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106716/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned
Communication dated 27/01/2025 passed by Respondent
No.5 bearing No. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB vide
Annexure - E;
b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Circular
dated 24/06/2025 passed by Respondent No.2 bearing
No.NAE 39 MLR 2025(E) vide Annexure - F;
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2
and 5 to not to hold elections to the 4th Respondent Council
until the expiry of the Petitioner's tenure of Presidentship of
thirty (30) months from the date of 1st meeting of the
second term dated 03/10/2024 i.e. up to 02/04/2027 vide
Annexure - D; in the alternative
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2
to determine and pay appropriate Compensation to the
Petitioner for loss of months of tenure of Presidentship of the
4th Respondent Council;
e. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.
8. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106726/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned
Communication dated 27/01/2025 passed by Respondent
No.5 bearing Annexure E; No. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB
vide
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
b. Issue a Writt of Certiorari quashing the impugned Circular
dated 26/03/2025 passed by Respondent No.2 bearing No. 2
39 2 2025(2) vide Annexure - F;
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2
and 5 to not to hold elections to the 4th Respondent Council
until the expiry of the Petitioner's tenure of Presidentship of
thirty (30) months from the date of 1st meeting of the
second term dated 26/08/2024 i.e. up to 25/02/2027 vide
Annexure - D; in the alternative
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2
to determine and pay appropriate Compensation to the
Petitioner for loss of months of tenure of Presidentship of the
4th Respondent Council;
e. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.
9. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106772/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned communication by
the respondent no.1 bearing No:NAE39MLR2025(E)dated
24.06.2025 copy as per ANNEXURE-G as being arbitrary,
illegal and contrary to section 42& 315 of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964 Act read with Article 243U of the
constitution, and / or,
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1 to 3&5to permit
the Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 06.05.2023 to 26-
08.2024i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of
Kudachi Town Municipal Council, in the spirit of democratic
values and basic structure of the Constitution of India, and/or
- 91 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
c. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
10. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106773/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1,2 & 4 to permit the
Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 09.05.2023 to 22.08.2024
i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of
Mahalingpur Town Municipal Council, in the spirit of
democratic values and basic structure of the Constitution of
India, and/or,
b. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
11. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106777/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
communication/direction dtd: 27-01-2025 vide ANNEXURE-E
bearing No.SECK /ULB/OTHR /1/ 2025-ULB issued/addressed
by the Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.1, in the interest
of justice and equity.
b) Declare that the duration/currency of the order dtd: 03-
05-2023 vide ANNEXURE-C issued by No.PuSa/Vahi:
unnumbered/2023-24 appointing Administrator to 4th
bearing Respondent No.3 Respondent Haveri City Municipal
Council from 30-04-2023 to 04-09-2024 shall not usurp the
total five years/60 months, of the tenure of the
Councillors/Petitioners.
- 92 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
c) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the
Respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the
Petitioners dtd: 04-09-2025 ANNEXURE-F and further direct
the Respondents No.1 to calculate the five years/60 months,
term of the Council by excluding the period from 30-04-2023
to 04-09-2024 for calculation of reminder 30 months term of
the elected council/Petitioners, in the interest of justice and
equity.
d) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the
Respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to permit the Petitioners to
function as Councillors of the 4th Respondent elected body by
completing the remainder 30 months term extending up-to
June 2027 by excluding the period of the Administrator in
respect of 4th Respondent Municipal Council from 30-04-
2023 to 04-09-2024, in the interest of justice and equity
e) Issue any Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court
may deem fit in the fact and circumstance of the case and in
the interest of justice.
12. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106782/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
Communication dated: 26.03.2025 issued by the 1st
Respondent authority bearing No. No.A.E 39 MLR 2025 (Ε)
vide Annexure D;
b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
Notification dated: 12/05/2023 issued by the 1st Respondent
authority bearing No. Na.A.Ε. 48 MLR 2023 vide Annexure C
in so far as Town Municipal Council Concerned;
C. Declare that the duration of the currency of the order
dated: 12/05/2023 appointing Administrator to Town to
Municipal Nargund Council from 05/05/2023 19/08/2024
- 93 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
shall not usurp the total five years of the tenure of the
Councilors.
d. Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents not
to hold elections to the 4th Respondent Council until the
expiry of the Petitioners' tenure up to 25/02/2027.
13. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106791/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned communication by
the respondent no.1 bearing No: NAE39MLR2025(E) dated
26.03.2025 copy as per ANNEXURE-G as being arbitrary,
illegal and contrary to section 42 & 315 of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964 Act read with Article 243U of the
constitution, and / or,
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1 to 4 to permit the
Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 09.05.2023 to 25-08.2024
i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of Terdal
Town Municipal Council, in the spirit of democratic values and
basic structure of the Constitution of India, and/or,
c. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
14. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106806/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
communication issued by Respondent no.1 bearing no. Na Aa
Ee 39 MLR 2025(E) dated 26.03.2025 vide Annexure 'G'
insofar as it proposes to conduct elections to TMC,
- 94 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Huvinahadagali before completion of the 30-month tenure of
the President and Vice-President elected on 20.02.2025;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not
to disturb or curtail the tenure of the present President and
Vice-President of TMC Huvinahadagali until 20.08.2027,
thereby considering the representation vide Annexure 'H', in
accordance with law;
c) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the circumstances of the case, including costs.
15. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106847/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing the impugned communication
dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure-F), issued by the 1st
Respondent bearing No.NA AA I 39 MLR 2025(I), as being
arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to Sections 18, 315,
316, and 318 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and
violative of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India;
b) Declare that the appointment of an Administrator to the
Kotturu Town Municipal Council for the period from
18.05.2023 to 31.08.2024 is without jurisdiction, illegal, and
cannot be reckoned towards the five-year tenure of the duly
elected Councilors;
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
recalculate the tenure of the Kotturu Town Municipal Council
by excluding the period from 18.05.2023 to 31.08.2024 and
thereby permit the Council to continue until completion of its
constitutionally guaranteed five-year term, in view of the
Petitioner's representation dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure-G);
- 95 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.
16. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106887/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
communication dated 27-01.2025 issued by the 1st
Respondent authority bearing No.SECK/ ULB/OTHR/1/2025-
ULB as at Annexure-F determining the date of completion of
tenure of Councilors and consequentially the Committee
insofar as relates to at Sl.No. 195, as contrary to Sec.18 and
Sec.315 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964;
to b. Declare that the duration of the currency of the order
dated 25.05.2023 appointing Administrator Harapanahalli
City Municipal Council from 17-05-2024 to 11-11-2024 shall
not usurp the total five years of the tenure of the Councilors.
c. Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1
and 2 to calculate the five years term of the Council
excluding the period from 17-05-2024 to 11-11-2024 and
further be directed that term of Harapanahalli City Municipal
Council would continue until completion of 30 months tenure
by considering the grievance of the Petitioners.
d. Issue any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may
deem fit in the fact and circumstance of the case and in the
interest of justice.
17. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106895/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned Notification bearing No. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-
- 96 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
ULB dated 27/01/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent vide
Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Grant any other relief, which is the Hon'ble court medium
fit in the interest of justice and equity.
18. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106896/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned Notification bearing No. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-
ULB dated 27/01/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent vide
Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Grant any other relief, which is the Hon'ble court medium
fit in the interest of justice and equity.
19. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106897/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned Notification bearing No. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-
ULB dated 27/01/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent vide
Annexure-D, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii.Grant any other relief, which is the Hon'ble court medium
fit in the interest of justice and equity.
20. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106902/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Declare that duration of the currency of the order bearing
No. NAE 48 MLR 2023 dated 25/05/2023 passed by
Respondent No. 1 marked at Annexure appointing
- 97 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
administrator to 4th Respondent Chikodi Municipal Council
from 19/04/2023 to 12/09/2024 shall not usurp the total five
years of the tenure of the Councillors and 30 months tenure
of petitioner as President,
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to
calculate the five year term of the Council and 30 months
period of President and Vice-President excluding the period
from 19/04/2023 to 12/09/2024 and further direct that term
of 4th Respondent TMC would continue until completion of 30
months tenure by considering the grievance of the petitioner
vide representation dated 25/08/2025 vide Annexure - J,
iii. and grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of
justice.
21. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106903/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
Communication bearing No.SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB
dated 27.01.2025 vide Annexure- C issued by Respondent
No.2 in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1
and 2 to calculate the term of the Respondent No.4 TMC by
Excluding the period where the Respondent No.4 TMC being
managed by the Respondent No.3 Administrator.
c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.
22. The Petitioners in W.P.No.106917/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
- 98 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the Respondents No.1,2 & 3 to permit the
petitioner to complete period of 30 months excluding the
period from 05/05/2023 to 21.08.2024 i.e., the period of
Administrator being in charge of Yellapur Town Panchayat
appointed u/s 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act so as
to be in compliance of democratic principles, and/or
b. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
23. The Petitioners in W.P.No.107101/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned communication by
the respondent no.1 bearing No: NAE39MLR2025(E) dated
24.06.2025 copy as per ANNEXURE-G as being arbitrary,
illegal and contrary to section 18, 42 & 315 of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964 Act read with Article 243U of the
constitution, and/or,
b. Declare that the period of Administration being in charge
of Sankeshwar TMC between 27.04.2023 to 10.09.2024 is
ultra-vires the Art. 243U of Constitution of India and violation
of democratic principles, the 30 months period is commence
from election of President for the X term and to compute the
period of 5 years excluding the period CMC between
27.04.2023 to 10.09.2024.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1 to 3to permit the
Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 27.04.2023 to 10.09.2024
i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of
Sankeshwar Town 16 Municipal Council, in the spirit of
democratic values and basic structure of the Constitution of
India,and/or,
- 99 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
d. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
24. The Petitioners in W.P.No.107102/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned communication in
so far as the petitioner is concerned respondent no.1 bearing
No: NAE39MLR2025(E) dated 24.06.2025 copy as per
ANNEXURE-F as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to
section 18 & 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964
Act read with Article 243U of the constitution, and/or,
b. Declare that the period of Administration being in charge
of Navalgund TMC between 18.05.2023 to 05.09.2024 is
ultra-vires the Art. 243U of Constitution of India and violation
of democratic principles, the 30 months period is commence
from election of President for the X term and to compute the
period of 5 years excluding the period CMC between
18.05.2023 to 05.09.2024.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1 to 3to permit the
Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 18.05.2023 to 05.09.2024
i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of Navalgund
Town Municipal Council, in the spirit of democratic values and
basic structure of the Constitution of India, and/or,
d. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
25. The Petitioners in W.P.No.107103/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
- 100 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned communication in
so far as petitioners concerned by the respondent no.1
bearing No: NAE39MLR2025(E) dated 24.06.2025 copy as
per ANNEXURE-F as being arbitrary. illegal and contrary to
section 18, 42 & 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,
1964 Act read with Article 243U of the constitution, and/or.
b. Declare that the period of Administration being in charge
of Nippani CMC between 01.05.2023 to 17.09.2024 is ultra-
vires the Art. 243U of Constitution of India and violation of
democratic principles, the 30 months period is commence
from election of President for the X term and to compute the
period of 5 years excluding the period CMC between
01.05.2023 to 17.09.2024.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction and direct the respondents no. 1 to 3to permit the
Petitioner's to complete the period of 30 months i.e., (X
term) excluding the period from 01.05.2023 to 17.09.2024
i.e., the period of Administrator being in charge of
NippaniCity Municipal Council, in the spirit of democratic
values and basic structure of the Constitution of India,
and/or,
d. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
26. The Petitioners in W.P.No.107109/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned
Communication dated 27/01/2025 passed by Respondent
No.5 bearing No. SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB vide
Annexure - D;
- 101 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
b. Issue a Writt of Certiorari quashing the impugned Circular
dated 26/03/2025 passed by Respondent No.2 bearing No. 2
39 2 2025(2) vide Annexure - E;
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2
and 5 to not to hold elections to the 4th Respondent Council
until the expiry of the Petitioner's tenure of Presidentship of
thirty (30) months from the date of 1st meeting of the
second term dated 30/08/2024 i.e. up to 30/04/2027 vide
Annexure - C, in the alternative
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2
to determine and pay appropriate Compensation to the
Petitioner for loss of months of tenure of Presidentship of the
4th Respondent Council;
e. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.
27. Essentially in all the matters, what is sought for is for
extension of the period of the term of the petitioner/s
some of them who claim to be the President or Vice-
President of the Town Municipal Council (TMC) / City
Municipal Council (CMC) / Municipality and some
others who claim to be members of the TMC / CMC /
Municipality on the ground that though they had been
elected on 30.11.2020, the first term of 30 months
having expired around May 2023 since the reservation
- 102 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
for the post of President and Vice-President was not
finalised which resulted in several litigations.
28. The Deputy Commissioner, exercising powers under
Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act (KMC
Act), appointed an administrator, who had been
administering the TMC / CMC / Municipality until
August 2024 when elections were held. The petitioners
in some of the above matters have been elected as
President, and in some of the above matters, have
been elected as Vice-President, and are to be given a
period of 30 months as a second term of the
municipality.
29. In view of the delay which has occurred during the
litigation, as well as the period in which the
administrator was appointed, the Council has not been
exercising its powers or discharging its duties. It is the
administrator who has substituted the Council. Thus,
the interregnum period between the completion of the
- 103 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
first term and the commencement of the second term
should be eschewed. The period of 30 months is to be
calculated from the date of the first meeting of the
second term, following the election of the President
and Vice-President, the second term of 30 months
would be calculated.
30. Similar is the contention of the members of the TMC /
CMC / Municipality who contend that, since the
administrator has been appointed, the Council was not
functioning, the Councillors have not exercised any
powers or discharged any duties. They were permitted
to exercise their powers and discharge their duties
only upon the election of the President and Vice-
President, post which the administrator vacated office,
and therefore, it is contended that the term of the
Councillors also needs to be extended so as to make
available the complete 30 months. These are the basic
contentions raised.
- 104 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
31. Sri. Mruthunjaya Tata Bangi, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.106387/2025
and 105784/2025, submits that:
31.1. There is a guarantee for the President and Vice-
President for discharge of their second term,
comprising 30 months. The said guarantee
cannot be taken away due to the delay on the
part of the Government in fixing the reservation.
It was the duty of the Government to have fixed
the reservation prior to the expiry of the term.
The same not having been fixed, irrespective of
the litigation which has ensued, the fact remains
that the President and Vice-President have not
had a term of 30 months. Therefore, this Court
ought to intercede and permit the President and
Vice-President to discharge their second term of
30 months.
- 105 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
31.2. The entire term is 60 months, which is, five
years, divided into two terms of 30 months each.
What is required to be considered is the terms of
30 months and not the entire term of 60 months.
Any gap between the two terms is required to be
excluded.
31.3. For the default on the part of the Government,
the persons who have been elected as President
and Vice-President cannot be deprived of the
balance of the term of 30 months. This would be
contrary to the principles of democracy and the
rights that the President and Vice-President are
entitled to exercise.
31.4. He also supports the case of the Councillors to
contend that once an exercise of power has been
made under Section 315, the administrator
replaces the Council and, as such, the Councillors
could not exercise any power.
- 106 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
31.5. If the Deputy Commissioner had exercised these
powers under subsection (5) of Section 42 of the
Municipalities Act, then the Council would
continue to remain in session, whereby the
Councillors would have exercised their powers in
voting on any resolution.
31.6. In the present case, the Councillors, being
deprived of exercising their rights as Councillors
due to an administrator being appointed under
Section 315, the time during which the
Administrator was appointed would have to be
excluded for the purpose of calculating the
second term of the Councillors.
31.7. In this regard, he relies on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Pal
Singh v. State of U.P.,1 more particularly Para
3 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:-
1
(2018) 7 SCC 521
- 107 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
3. With the passage of time, it was realised that
there had been no real decentralisation of
powers. In the absence of basic decentralisation
of powers travelling to the mores in one of the
largest democracies like India, it was felt that the
real purpose of social transformation could not be
achieved. It was acknowledged and accepted that
the people at the grass root level deserved to be
politically, economically and socially empowered
and the Seventy-third Amendment was brought
into the framework of our organic Constitution
with the clear intent of having local self-
government. The vision, it can be said with
certitude, is sacred and the same is explicit from
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Seventy-third Amendment to the Constitution. It
reads as follows:
"1. Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have
been in existence for a long time, it has been
observed that these institutions have not been
able to acquire the status and dignity of viable
and responsive people's bodies due to a number
of reasons including absence of regular elections,
prolonged supersessions, insufficient
representation of weaker sections like Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, inadequate
devolution of powers and lack of financial
resources.
2. Article 40 of the Constitution which enshrines
one of the directive principles of State policy lays
down that the State shall take steps to organise
village panchayats and endow them with such
powers and authority as may be necessary to
enable them to function as units of self-
government. In the light of the experience in the
last forty years and in view of the short-comings
which have been observed, it is considered that
there is an imperative need to enshrine in the
Constitution certain basic and essential features
- 108 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty,
continuity and strength to them.
3. Accordingly, it is proposed to add a new Part
relating to panchayats in the Constitution to
provide for among other things, Gram Sabha in a
village or group of villages; constitution of
panchayats at village and other level or levels;
direct elections to all seats in panchayats at the
village and intermediate level, if any, and to the
offices of Chairpersons of Panchayats at such
levels; reservation of seats for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to
their population for membership of panchayats
and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at each
level; reservation of not less than one-third of the
seats for women; fixing tenure of 5 years for
panchayats and holding elections within a period
of 6 months in the event of supersession of any
Panchayat; disqualifications for membership of
panchayats; devolution by the State Legislature
of powers and responsibilities upon the
panchayats with respect to the preparation of
plans for economic developments and social
justice and for the implementation of
development schemes; sound finance of the
panchayats by securing authorisation from State
Legislatures for grants-in-aid to the panchayats
from the Consolidated Fund of the State, as also
assignment to, or appropriation by, the
panchayats of the revenues of designated taxes,
duties, tolls and fees; setting up of a Finance
Commission within one year of the proposed
amendment and thereafter every 5 years to
review the financial position of panchayats;
auditing of accounts of the panchayats; powers of
State Legislatures to make provisions with
respect to elections to panchayats under the
superintendence, direction and control of the
chief electoral officer of the State; application of
the provisions of the said Part to Union
Territories; excluding certain States and areas
- 109 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
from the application of the provisions of the said
Part; continuance of existing laws and panchayats
until one year from the commencement of the
proposed amendment and barring interference by
courts in electoral matters relating to
panchayats."
31.8. By referring to Kiran Pal Singh's case, the
Statement of Objects and Reasons for
introducing the 73rd Amendment has been placed
on record, and it is contended that Panchayati
Raj institutions and or the local government are
required to be sufficiently empowered to carry
out their activities and for that reason, a tenure
of five years having been fixed, that tenure of
five years would have to enure to the benefit of
the petitioners.
31.9. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of Vishwantah Akhandappa v.
State of Karnataka2, more particularly Para 6
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
2
(1980) 2 Kant LJ 398
- 110 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
6. As already pointed out, by reason of
conversion of Panchayat into Town Municipal
Council by virtue of S. 357(b) of the Act, the
interim Municipal Council consisting of persons
vacating office as members of the Village
Panchayat and the Chairman and the Vice-
Chairman of the Village Panchayat respectively
become the Councillors and the President and
Vice-President of the interim Municipal Council.
Accordingly, Petitioners 1 and 2 came to be
statutorily, continued as the President and the
Vice-President of the interim Municipal Council
and petitioner 3 and respondents 3 to 12 as the
Councillors. The term of office of the Councillors
of the Municipal Council as provided by s. 358(2)
of the Act expires on the date immediately
preceding the date of the first meeting of the new
Municipal Concil. Under S. 358(1) of the Act the
State Government is required to take steps for
holding elections for constituting a new Municipal
Council within one year of the constitution of the
interim Municipal Council. But, the State
Government does not appear to have taken steps
for holding the election; but that does not in any
way affect the term of office of the interim
Municipal Councilors. In the case of interim
Municipal Council coming into existence by reason
of conversion of Panchayat into Municipality the
term of the office of the interim Municipal
Councillors comes to an end only on the date
immediately preceding the date of the first
meeting of the new Municipal Council as stated in
S. 358(2) of the Act. Therefore, the interim
Municipal Council continues to function until the
first meeting of the newly elected Municipal
Council takes place. Therefore, it was not a case
where either any general election to a Municipal
Council under the Act or any proceedings
consequent thereon were stayed by an order of a
competent court or authority nor the election of
all the Councillors or more than two-thirds of the
whole number of Councillors of the Municipal
- 111 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Council has been declared by a competent court
or authority to be void. It was also not a case in
which the term or the extended term of the
Municipal Council can be said to have expired.
The term of office of the interim Municipal
Councillors, as already pointed out, continues till
the previous day of the date of the first meeting
of the new Municipal Council and that can happen
only when the elections are held. The failure on
the part of the State Government to hold
elections for electing new Municipal Councillors
does not enable the State Government under S.
315(1) of the Act to appoint the Administrator
unless the term of office of the Municipal
Councillors has also expired. In the case of
interim Municipal Council coming into existence
by reason of conversion of Panchayat Committee
into Town Municipal Council, the term of office of
the interim Municipal Councillors continues until
the elections are held and the first meeting of the
new Municipal Council takes place. That being so,
there was no power vested in the State
Government under S. 315(1) of the Act to
appoint the Administrator to the interim Municipal
Council, Jewargi. Consequently, it follows that the
impugned notification dated 16-11-1979 (Ex-C)
issued by the first respondent is without the
authority of law and as such it is without
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned notification bearing
No. HUD 214 TML dated 16-11-1979 (Exhibit-C)
issued by the first respondent is hereby quashed.
Rule is made absolute.
31.10. By relying on Vishwanath Akhandappa's case, it
is submitted that when interim municipal councils
come into being on account of conversion of
Panchayat into Town Municipal Council, the
- 112 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
existing members of the Panchayat would
become the councillors and office bearers which
would continue till the expiry of the term and as
such, in terms of subsection (2) of Section 358,
the term of the existing Municipal Councillors
would only come to an end on the first meeting
of the newly elected municipal council takes
place. On that basis, it is contended that failure
on the part of the State Government to hold
elections for electing new municipal councillors
would not enable the State Government under
Section 315 to appoint an administrator, unless
the term of the office of the municipal councillor
has expired. In the present case, the second
term of the council would commence on the date
of the first meeting of the second term, which
would last for a period of 30 months. Before the
expiry of this 30-month period, no administrator
- 113 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
could be appointed under Section 315 or election
held.
31.11. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of Kalpana Manjunath v. State of
Karnataka3 , more particularly Para 24 thereof,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
24. One another aspect which would require
examination is the appointment of administrator.
Section 315 provides for appointment of an
administrator only under the circumstances
mentioned therein. Section 315 does not provide
for appointment of an administrator while an
exercise is undertaken by the Government under
Chapter XVI of the Act. This is also not a case of
dissolution of the elected body. Therefore, an
officer could not be appointed by the Government
to take care of the affairs of the Municipal
Council, invoking Section 366. This Court in
Vishwantah Akhandappa v. State of Karnataka
[Vishwantah Akhandappa v. State of Karnataka,
1980 SCC OnLine Kar 198 : (1980) 2 Kant LJ
398] has held that Section 315(1) of the Act,
does not enable the State Government to appoint
an administrator unless the term of office of the
Municipal Councillors had expired. It was held
that in the case of interim Municipal Councils
coming into existence by reason of conversion of
Panchayat areas into Town Municipal Council, the
term of the interim Municipal Councillors
continues until the general election are held and
3
(2021) 2 Kant 520
- 114 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
the first meeting of the new Municipal Council
takes place. It was held that the term of the
interim Municipal Councillors in terms of Section
358(2) shall come to end only when the first
meeting of the new Municipal Council is held.
Until such term, just because the State
Government did not hold elections as stipulated
under Section 358(1), the Government could not
appoint an administrator.
31.12. By relying on Kalpana Manjunath's case, it is
submitted that until elections are held, in terms
of subsection (1) of Section 358, the
Government could not appoint an administrator.
31.13. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of V. Subba Reddy v. State of
Karnataka4 , more particularly Paras 20 and 21
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
20. Section 315 of the Act reads as follows:--
"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
4
ILR 1989 KAR 101
- 115 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
(b) the election of all the Councillors or more than
two-thirds of the whole member of Councillors of
the Municipal Council has been declared by a
competent Court or Authority to be void, or
(c) the term or the extended term of Office of the
Councillors of the Municipal Council has expired
and the new Municipal Council has not been
constituted in accordance with the provisions of
this Act, or
(d) all the Councillors or more than two-thirds of
the whole number of Councillors of the Municipal
Council have resigned, the State Government
shall 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 or 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
- 116 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Advisory Council shall hold Office during the
pleasure of the State Government."
Clause (c) above clearly provides for the
appointment of an administrator when the term
has come to an end. In other words, there is no
extension of the term of the Councillors generally
or in particular cases on the appointment of an
administrator in place of Municipal Councillors. It
becomes imperative, so that the administration is
carried on in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. There cannot be any vacuum created by
the expiry of the term of the Office of the
Councillors. In that sense Section 315 is an
enabling provision to ensure continuity in the
administration of the Municipal affairs of the
town.
21. On the other hand Section 316 is the specific
power conferred on the Government to bring to
book erring Municipal Councillors and also set
right any maladministration in the Municipality.
Section 316 of the Act reads as follows:--
"Power of Government to supersede a
Municipal Council in certain circumstances --
(1) If, in the opinion of Government any
Municipal Council is not competent to perform, or
persistently makes default in the performance of
the duties imposed on it or undertaken by it by or
under this Act, or any other law, or exceeds or
abuses its power or refuses to carry out the
directions given to it under the provisions of this
Act or any other law (or is functioning in a
manner prejudicial to the Municipality) the
Government may, by an order published,
together with a statement of the reasons
therefor, in the Official Gazette, declare the
Municipal Council to be incompetent or in default,
or to have exceeded or abused its powers, as the
case may be, and may supersede it for such
- 117 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
period (not exceeding one year) as may be
specified in the order:
Provided that before making an order of
supersession as aforesaid reasonable opportunity
shall be given to the Municipal Council to show
cause why such order should not be made.
Provided further that for reasons to be recorded
in writing the Government may extend the period
of supersession by a further period not exceeding
six months:
Provided also that the Government may continue
the supersession for any period beyond one year
and six months if, in its opinion for reasons
beyond its control which shall be recorded in
writing, it is necessary so to do.
(2) When the Municipal Council is superseded by
an order under sub-section (1) the following
consequences shall ensue:--
(i) all the Councillors of the Municipal Council
shall, on such date as may be specified in the
order vacate their Office as such Councillors
without prejudice to their eligibility for election
under sub-section (4);
(ii) during the period of supersession of the
Municipal Council, all powers and duties conferred
and imposed on the Municipal Council by or under
this Act or any other law shall be exercised and
performed by such Officer as the Government
may from time to time appoint in that behalf;
(iii) all property vested in the Municipal Council
shall, until it is reconstituted, vest in the
Government.
(3) If, after enquiry made, the Government so
directs, then notwithstanding the term of the
- 118 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Councillors of the superseded Municipal Council,
the period of supersession with all the
consequences aforesaid shall from time to time,
be continued (either prospectively or
retrospectively) by an order published as
aforesaid until such date as may be fixed by the
Government for reconstitution of the Municipal
Council.
(4) After the Municipal Council is superseded it
shall be re-constituted by the election or
appointment of Councillors under, the provisions
of this Act and the rules made thereunder
applicable thereto--
(i) if no direction has been made under sub-
section (3) before the expiration of the period
specified in the order of supersession under sub-
section (1), and
(ii) if a direction has been made under sub-
section (3) before such date as is fixed under that
sub-section for the reconstitution of the Municipal
Council.
(5) An order of supersession of a Municipal
Council under sub-section (1) and an order under
sub-section (3) together with a statement of the
reasons therefor shall be laid before both Houses
of the State Legislature as soon as may be after it
is made."
The provision is clear enough to indicate that the
power exercised is quasi-judicial in as much as
the affected Municipal Council is bound to be
heard after specific charges are levelled against it
in regard to any act of mis-management or
persistent default. If this is borne in mind, then,
on the undisputed facts, the following will
emerge:
- 119 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
(1) The power of the Government under Section
18 of the Act is executive powers to be exercised
for the specific purpose of extending the term of
Office of the Councillors and it does not confer
any legal right on the Councillors to claim right of
extension as a matter of Course.
(2) Power under Section 315 of the Act conferred
on the Government to appoint an administrator is
again an executive power enabling the
Government in several of given situations to
provide continuity of administration by
appointment of administrator and one such
situation being the expiry of the term of the
Councillors.
(3) Section 316 of the Act on the other hand
gives power to Government to supersede a
Municipal Council and set right by the
appointment of an administrator for the specified
period for any act of mis-management or
persistent default.
31.14. By referring to V.Subba Reddy's case, he
submits that powers under Section 315, could
only be exercised if the general election to a
Municipal Council under the Act or any
proceedings have been stayed by an order of the
competent court or authority or the elections of
all councillors or more than two-thirds or the
whole member of the councillors of the Municipal
Council has been declared by a competent court
- 120 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
or authority to be void. The term or the
extended term of office of the councillors of the
Municipal Council has expired, and the new
Municipal Council has not been constituted or, if
more than two-thirds of the whole of the number
of councillors have resigned. His submission is
that none of these having occurred in the
present matter, the powers under Section 315
could not be excised. His further submission
under Section 316, a specific power conferred on
the Government to supersede a Municipal
Council, which powers have also not been
exercised, and as such, the appointment of an
administrator under Section 315 without the
requirement of Section 315 being satisfied
cannot be done.
31.15. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of Usha Mahesh Dasar v. State of
- 121 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Karnataka5 , more particularly Para 13 thereof,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
13. A perusal of the above Sub-section (2) of
Section 315 indicates that, if an administrator
were to be appointed, during the period of such
appointment, the Municipal Council and the
committees thereof and the President and Vice-
president charged with carryout 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 on
them under the Act or any other law and all such
duties and functions shall be performed and
discharged by the administrator.
31.16. By relying on Usha Mahesh Dasar's case, he
submits that the administrator would discharge
all duties and functions of the council. Therefore,
the council not being in operation, the period of
the appointment of the administrator cannot be
taken into consideration for the purpose of
calculating the term of the council.
31.17. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhiram
5
2025 SCC Online Kar 17173
- 122 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Singh v. C.D. Commachen and ors.,6 more
particularly Paras 74 to 77 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
74. The upshot of the above discussion clearly is
that under the constitutional scheme mixing
religion with State power is not permissible while
freedom to practice, profess and propagate
religion of one's choice is guaranteed. The State
being secular in character will not identify itself
with any one of the religions or religious
denominations. This necessarily implies that
religion will not play any role in the governance of
the country which must at all times be secular in
nature. The elections to the State Legislature or
to Parliament or for that matter or any other body
in the State is a secular exercise just as the
functions of the elected representatives must be
secular in both outlook and practice. Suffice it to
say that the constitutional ethos forbids mixing of
religions or religious considerations with the
secular functions of the State. This necessarily
implies that interpretation of any statute must
not offend the fundamental mandate under the
Constitution. An interpretation which has the
effect of eroding or diluting the constitutional
objective of keeping the State and its activities
free from religious considerations, therefore,
must be avoided. This Court has in several
pronouncements ruled that while interpreting an
enactment, the Courts should remain cognizant of
the constitutional goals and the purpose of the
Act and interpret the provisions accordingly.
75. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar [Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 :
(1962) 2 Cri LJ 103] , a Constitution Bench of this
Court declared that while interpreting an
6
(2017) 2 SCC 629
- 123 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
enactment, the Court should have regard not
merely to the literal meaning of the words used,
but also take into consideration the antecedent
history of the legislation, its purpose and the
mischief it seeks to address. More importantly,
the Court observed : (AIR p. 969, para 26)
"26. ... It is well settled that if certain provisions
of law construed in one way would make them
consistent with the Constitution, and another
interpretation would render them
unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour
of the former construction."
76. Extending the above principle further one can
say that if two constructions of a statute were
possible, one that promotes the constitutional
objective ought to be preferred over the other
that does not do so.
77. To somewhat similar effect is the decision of
this Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu
Ingale [State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale,
1995 Supp (4) SCC 469 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1762]
wherein this Court held that as the vehicle of
transforming the nation's life, the Court should
respond to the nation's need and interpret the
law with pragmatism to further public welfare and
to make the constitutional animations a reality.
The Court held that Judges should be cognizant of
the constitutional goals and remind themselves of
the purpose of the Act while interpreting any
legislation. The Court said : (SCC p. 486, para
35)
"35. The Judges, therefore, should respond to the
human situations to meet the felt necessities of
the time and social needs, make meaningful the
right to life and give effect to the Constitution and
the will of the legislature. This Court as the
vehicle of transforming the nation's life should
respond to the nation's needs and interpret the
- 124 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
law with pragmatism to further public welfare to
make the constitutional animations a reality.
Common sense has always served in the court's
ceaseless striving as a voice of reason to
maintain the blend of change and continuity of
order which is sine qua non for stability in the
process of change in a parliamentary democracy.
In interpreting the Act, the Judge should be
cognizant to and always keep at the back of
his/her mind the constitutional goals and the
purpose of the Act and interpret the provisions of
the Act in the light thus shed to annihilate
untouchability; to accord to the Dalits and the
Tribes right to equality; give social integration a
fruition and make fraternity a reality."
31.18. By relying on Abhiram Singh's case, he submits
that while interpreting the above provisions, the
interpretation consistent with the purpose of the
Act is required to be applied. If the State
Government is permitted to hold elections, then
that would trample upon the guarantee of the
term of 30 months to the second term of the
councillors. The calculation of the second term
would have to be specifically made from the date
on which the first meeting of the second term of
councillors was held.
- 125 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
31.19. Based on all the above, he submits that the Writ
Petition is required to be allowed.
32. Sri. Shivaraj Balloli, learned counsel for the Petitioner
in W.P.Nos.106726/2025, 106716/2025 and
107109/2025, submits that:
32.1. Section 18(1)(A) of the Municipalities Act
provides for the term of an elected Councillor to
be five years, and such term shall commence
from the date of the first meeting of the
Municipal Council.
32.2. Since the term has been bifurcated into two
terms, his submission is that the date of
commencement of the second term would have
to be taken as the date on which the first
meeting of the second term was conducted. This
being so, since Section 42 provides for the
election of the President of a Council and in
terms of subsection (11) of Section 42, the
- 126 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
President shall hold office for a period of 30
months.
32.3. His submission is that subsection (11) of Section
42 is to be read in consonance with Article 243-U
to mean that a Councillor shall continue in his
office for a period of 60 functioning months, split
between two terms 30 months each held by a
different President and Vice-President.
32.4. The word 'continue' used in Article 243-U would
be for the entire period of five years in which the
Councillor discharges his functions, and as such,
the period during which the administrator had
been appointed would have to be excluded from
such period to constitute a five-year period.
32.5. The term of the President for each term of 30
months commencing from the date of the first
day of the meeting, the same would have to be
applied to the second term, and the period of 30
months would have to be calculated from the
- 127 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
date of the first day of the meeting of the Council
for the second term.
32.6. If such an interpretation is not applied, the same
would result in discrimination and violation of
Article 14 inter se between the two terms,
frustrating the intent and purport of Article 243-
U of the Constitution. Both terms have to be
equal, and there cannot be a difference between
the terms. If there is a difference or shortfall, it
would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
32.7. He also relies on subsection (5) of section 42 and
submits that during the vacancy in the office of
the President, the Deputy Commissioner or any
person nominated by the Deputy Commissioner
could function as the President. However, the
Council will continue to function. Juxtaposing the
same to Section 315 of the Municipalities Act, he
submits that an administrator would take over
the Council and function as the Council.
- 128 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
32.8. His submission is also that the appointment of an
administrator in all the present matters are
contrary to Section 315 inasmuch as under
Section 315 an administrator could be appointed
only if an election to the Municipal Council had
been stayed by a Court or if elections to all or
more than two-thirds of the whole number of
Councillors is declared to be void or more than
two-thirds of the whole of the Councillors had
resigned. None of these three situations having
arisen, the appointment of an administrator by
the State under Section 315 is not proper. Thus,
the appointment of the administrator being void,
the term during which the administrator occupied
his position would have to be eschewed from the
total term of the Council.
32.9. On the above basis, he submits that the Writ
Petitions are required to be allowed.
- 129 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
33. Sri. Anoop Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in W.P. No. 106273/2025, would also
reiterate the above arguments and further submits
that.
33.1. He relies upon the decision in the case of
Kishansing Tomar v.s Municipal Corporation
of the City of Ahmedabad7, more particularly
Paras 20 and 21 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
(20) It is true that there may be certain mad
made calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of
law and d order, or natural calamities which could
distract the authorities from holding elections to
the e Municipality, but they are exceptional
circumstances and under no circumstance the
Election Commission would be justified in
delaying the process of election after consulting
the State Govt. and other authorities. But that
should be an exceptional circumstance and shall
not be a regular feature to extend the duration of
the Municipality, Going by the provisions
contained in Article 243 U, it is clear that the
period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute
the Municipality is mandatory in nature and has
to be followed in all respects. It is only when the
Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and
the remainder of the period for which the
dissolved Municipality would have continued is
less s than six months, it shall not be necessary
7
LAWS (SC)-2006-10-68
- 130 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
to hold any elections for constituting the
Municipality for such period.
(21) In our opinion, the entire provision in the
Constitution was inserted to see that there should
not be any delay in the constitution of the new
Municipality every five years and in order to avoid
the mischief of delaying the process of election
and allowing the nominated bodies to continue,
the provisions have been suitably added to the
Constitution. In this direction, it is necessary for
all the State Governments to recognize the
significance of the State Election Commission,
which is a constitutional body and it shall abide
by the directions of the Commission in the same
manner in which it follows the directions of the
Election Commission of India during the elections
for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact,
in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and
the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part
IX A for the conduct of the elections to these
bodies they enjoy the same status as the Election
Commission of India.
33.2. By relying on Kishansingh Tomar's case, he
submits that the exceptional circumstances
which are taken into consideration for extension
of time, the non-holding of election to the post of
President and Vice President is also an
exceptional circumstance which ought to be
taken into consideration by this Court to come to
- 131 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
a conclusion that the term of office of the second
term has not been completed.
34. Sri.Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.106887/2025 also reiterates the above
submissions. He additionally submits that the mandate
of Article 243U would have to be read in conjunction
with the requirement and or the mandate under
Section 18 (1)(A) of the Municipalities Act, giving
effect to both the terms of 30 months.
35. All the other counsel for the Petitioners adopt the
submissions made by the arguing counsel.
36. Sri.J.M.Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate
General, would submit that:
36.1. The mandate under Article 243U is sacrosanct.
The period of five years cannot be extended for
any purposes, since the usage of the words
under 243U is "and no longer". In this regard,
- 132 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
he relies upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Mr.C.K.Rama Murthy and anr., vs.
State Election Commission and ors.,8 more
particularly Paras 35 to 39 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
35. I have considered this submission made on
behalf of the State in light of the Article 243U of
the Constitution. As already noted, sub-clauses
(8) and (9) of Section 99 of the Act are in pari
materia with clauses (3) and (4) of Article 243U
of the Constitution. Therefore, it is necessary to
analyze that Article. Clause (1) of Article 243U
categorically sates that every Municipality
(Corporation in the instant case), unless sooner
dissolved under any law for the time being in
force (Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976,
in the instant case) shall continue for five years
from the date appointed for its first meeting and
no longer. The import of Clause (1) is that a
period of five years from the date of the first
meeting of the Corporation is the term fixed for a
Corporation. This term is, however, subject to
dissolution of the Corporation by the State
Government. Therefore, the intent is to make it
mandatory for a Corporation to function for a
period of five years, in the absence of steps being
taken for its dissolution. The second intent of
sub-clause (1) becomes clear by the inclusion of
the words "and no longer". The purpose of
inclusion of the aforesaid expression is that on
the completion of five years, the Corporation
cannot continue for any further duration.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the State Election
Commission and other authorities including the
8
WP Nos.7939-40/2015 and connected matters dated 30.3.2015
- 133 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
State Government to carry out the mandate of
the Constitution and ensure that a new body is
constituted in time by holding election before
expiry of five years as stipulated in the said
clause. Thus, the period of five years is
constitutionally stipulated and it is the maximum
period. That is also the minimum period of a
Corporation, unless dissolved earlier. For no
reason whatsoever the term of five years can be
extended beyond five years. Thus, by virtue of
Clause (1) to Article 243U, the term of the
Corporation has been fixed with certainty. Of
course, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kishansingh Tomar has taken note of realities of
life and stated that there could be exceptional
circumstances for not holding election in time,
such as natural calamities, but the fact that there
could be certain reasons to postpone the election
would not empower the Commission to justify
delay in the process of conduct of election.
Postponement of election must be under
exceptional circumstances as stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the object of
Clause (1) of Article 243U is to ensure that there
is no delay in the process of holding election in
time by allowing urban bodies to continue beyond
the statutory period of five years.
Clause (2) of Article 243U is not relevant for this
case and hence, would not necessitate any
consideration.
Clause (3) of Article 243U deals with
reconstitution of a Corporation in two
circumstances:
(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in
Clause (1) i.e., before five years from the date
appointed for its meeting and (b) before the
expiration of period of six months from the date
of its dissolution. Thus, if the Corporation is
dissolved and an Administrator is appointed, then
- 134 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
the maximum period during which an
Administrator could function is only six months
from the date of dissolution and before that
period Corporation has to be reconstituted. But
proviso to sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) is
significant. It states that when the remainder of
the period for which the dissolved Corporation
would have continued is less than six months,
then it shall not be necessary to hold any election
under that clause for constituting the Corporation
for such period. The crucial words in this proviso
are significant. It means that if the Corporation is
dissolved, and having regard to the term of the
Municipality being five years from the date of its
first meeting, if the remainder period is less than
six months, then it would not be necessary to
hold election to reconstitute the Corporation for
the remainder period. In such an event the
reconstitution would have to be only under sub-
clause (a) read with Clause (1) of Article 243U
i.e., on completion of five years from the date
appointed for its first meeting, which would in
any case expire during the period the
administrator is appointed. Hence, under no
circumstance, can dissolution of a Corporation
extend the term of the Corporation beyond five
years from the date appointed for its first
meeting, which would in any case expire during
the period the administrator is appointed. This
becomes further clear on a reading of Clause (4)
of Article 243U. It states that a Municipality
(Corporation in the instant case) constituted
upon its dissolution 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. Therefore, the term of the
Corporation is fixed as five years. If within that
period of five years, the Corporation is dissolved
and it is reconstituted before the expiration of
five years, then the reconstituted Corporation
would continue only for the remaining period
- 135 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
within the said period of five years, had it not
been dissolved. Thus, irrespective of the fact,
that a Corporation being dissolved and
reconstituted, its term of five years would not get
altered.
36. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Clauses (3)
and (4) of Article 243U, what emerges is that
dissolution of the Corporation would not extend
its term beyond five years from the date for its
first meeting. If there are more than six months
remaining on dissolution and its reconstitution, a
Corporation would function only for the remainder
period, till expiration of five years. But if the
remainder of the period of dissolved Municipality
is less than six months, then it is not necessary
to hold any election for reconstituting the
Corporation as the term of Corporation would
automatically come to an end during the period
Administrator is appointed and election would
have to be held to reconstitute the Corporation
under clause (1).
37. Thus, when the term of the Corporation
expires, then automatically under Clause (1) r/w
sub- clause (a) of Clause (3) of Article 243U,
election would have to be held. This is
irrespective of the fact as to whether the
Corporation has been dissolved or not. If it is
dissolved and reconstituted, then in terms of
Clause (4) it is only for the remainder period of
the five year term. On the other hand, if it is
dissolved and if the remainder period is less than
six months, then on expiry of the term, it would
have to be reconstituted irrespective of the
Administrator being appointed. Thus, the
contention of the State that election need not be
held on the expiry of the term of the present
Council, in view of its dissolution and
appointment of an Administrator being imminent,
in which case, the Administrator could function
for a period of six months from the date of
- 136 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
dissolution and beyond the five year term is
misconceived.
38. In the instant case, even if an Administrator
is appointed immediately and the remaining
period of Corporation being in any case, less than
six months, then the Corporation would cease to
function on the expiry of its term i.e., on
22.4.2015 and election would have to be held
(although the Administrator would be functioning
at the helm of affairs of the Corporation) and not
prior to the expiration of a period of six months
from the date of its dissolution. Therefore, if
during the period of six months when the
Administrator is appointed to a Corporation, the
remainder of the term of the Corporation expires,
then it has to be reconstituted forthwith and not
wait till the expiry of six months from the date of
its dissolution. That is why the proviso
categorically states that when the remainder
period of the dissolved Municipality is less than
six months, then it is not necessary to
reconstitute the Municipality under sub-clause (b)
of Clause (3) as during the period of six months
when the Administrator is functioning when the
term of the Municipality would come to an end
election would have to be held before the expiry
of its duration under Clause (1) and sub-clause
(a) of Clause (3).
39. As already noted, sub-clause (4) makes the
aforesaid interpretation explicit by stating that
any reconstitution of the dissolved Corporation
under sub-clause (b) of (3) would be only for the
remainder period for which the dissolved
Corporation would have continued in Clause (1)
had it not been so dissolved. Thus, reconstitution
of the Corporation on its dissolution would not
give a fresh lease of life to the Corporation by five
years, but it is restricted upto the date when its
five term would end from the date of its first
meeting. Also sub-clause (b) of Clause (3)
- 137 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
restricts the period during which an
Administrator can function upto six months only
from the date of its dissolution. Thus,
reconstitution of a Corporation under Clause (1)
of Article 243U read with sub-clause (a) of Clause
(3) and reconstitution of a Corporation after
dissolution under sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) are
distinct. But the common aspect in both cases is
that reconstitution on the expiry of the term of
the Corporation or on dissolution cannot be
beyond a period of five years as the term of a
Corporation is five years and no longer. Thus, the
contention of the State that dissolution of the
Corporation would enable an Administrator to be
appointed for a maximum period of six months
and hence, till then, election need not be held
even if by then the term of the Corporation ends
is incorrect and rejected.
36.2. By relying on C.K.Ramamurthy's case, he
submits that the Division Bench of this Court has
categorically come to a conclusion that the term
of the Corporation would be five years and no
longer. It is this phrase, "and no longer" that he
relies upon to contend that, irrespective of what
may happen, the term of the council shall be five
years and no longer. And as such, the
Government, having issued a notification for the
election, is in compliance not only with the
- 138 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
constitutional mandate, but also with the
interpretation in C.K.Ramamurty's case.
36.3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishansing
Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of
Ahmedabad and others9, more particularly Paras
12, 13, 14, 19 and 21 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
12. It may be noted that Part IX-A was inserted in the
Constitution by virtue of the (Seventy Fourth)
Amendment Act, 1992. The object of introducing these
provisions was that in many States the local bodies were
not working properly and the timely elections were not
being held and the nominated bodies were continuing for
long periods. Elections had been irregular and many
times unnecessarily delayed or postponed and the
elected bodies had been superseded or suspended
without adequate justification at the whims and fancies
of the State authorities. These views were expressed by
the then Minister of State for Urban Development while
introducing the Constitution Amendment Bill before the
Parliament and thus the new provisions were added in
the Constitution with a view to restore the rightful place
in political governance for local bodies. It was considered
necessary to provide a Constitutional status to such
bodies and to ensure regular and fair conduct of
elections. In the statement of objects and reasons in the
Constitution Amendment Bill relating to urban local
bodies, it was stated:
"In many States, local bodies have become weak and
ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including the
9
(2006) 8 SCC 352
- 139 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersessions
and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. As a
result, urban local bodies are not able to perform
effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-
Government.
Having regard to these inadequacies, it is considered
necessary that provisions relating to urban local bodies
are incorporated in the Constitution, particularly for
(i) putting on a firmer footing the relationship between
the State Government and the Urban Local Bodies with
respect to :
(a) the functions and taxation powers, and
(b) arrangements for revenue sharing.
(ii) ensuring regular conduct of elections.
(iii) ensuring timely elections in the case of
supersession; and
(iv) providing adequate representation for the weaker
sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
women.
Accordingly, it has been proposed to add a new Part
relating to the Urban Local Bodies in the Constitution to
provide for.
(f) fixed tenure of 5 years for the Municipality and re-
election within a period of six months of its dissolution."
13. The effect of Article 243-U of the Constitution is to
be appreciated in the above background. Under this
Article, the duration of the Municipality is fixed for a
term of five years and it is stated that every Municipality
shall continue for five years from the date appointed for
its first meeting and no longer. Clause (3) of Article 243-
U states that election to constitute a Municipality shall be
completed - (a) before the expiry of its duration
specified in clause (1), or (b) before the expiration of a
period of six months from the date or its dissolution.
Therefore, the constitutional mandate is that election to
a Municipality shall be completed before the expiry of
the five years' period stipulated in clause (1) of Article
- 140 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
243-U and in case of dissolution, the new body shall be
constituted before the expiration of a period of six
months and elections have to be conducted in such a
manner. A Proviso is added to Sub-clause (3) Article
243-U that in case of dissolution, 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. It is also
specified in Clause (4) of Article 243-U that 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.
14. 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.
19. From the opinion thus expressed by this Court, it is
clear that the State Election Commission shall not put
forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds that
the election could not be completed in time. The Election
Commission shall try to complete the election before the
expiration of the duration of five years' period as
stipulated in Clause (5). Any revision of electoral rolls
shall be carried out in time and if it cannot be carried out
within a reasonable time, the election has to be
conducted on the basis of the then existing electoral
rolls. In other words, the Election Commission shall
complete the election before the expiration of the
duration of five years' period as stipulated in Clause (5)
and not yield to situations that may be created by vested
interests to postpone elections from being held within
the stipulated time.
- 141 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
21. Commission shall take steps to prepare the electoral
rolls by following due process of law, but that too, should
be done timely and in no circumstances, it shall be
delayed so as to cause gross violation of the mandatory
provisions contained in Article 243-U of the Constitution.
It is true that there may be certain man-made
calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and
order, or natural calamities which could distract the
authorities from holding elections to the Municipality, but
they are exceptional circumstances and under no
circumstance the Election Commission would be justified
in delaying the process of election after consulting the
State Govt. and other authorities. But that should be an
exceptional circumstance and shall not be a regular
feature to extend the duration of the Municipality. Going
by the provisions contained in Article 243-U, it is clear
that the period of five years fixed thereunder to
constitute the Municipality is mandatory in nature and
has to be followed in all respects. It is only when the
Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and 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 elections
for constituting the Municipality for such period."
36.4. By relying on Kishansing Tomar's case, he
submits that, since the duration of the
municipality having been fixed for five years
from the date appointed for its first meeting and
no longer, the period being specified, his
submission is that, elections would have to be
held by the respondent State.
- 142 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
36.5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hemant
Narayan Rasne vs. Commissioner and
Administrator of Pune Municipal
Corporation and others10 , more particularly
Paras 18, 20, 21 and 22 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. The relevant provisions referred to by the learned
counsel for the parties and having bearing on the
present discussion read as under: -
18.1 The Constitution of India
"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."
18.2 The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act,
1949
"6. Duration of Corporation. (1) Every Corporation,
unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for a period of
five years from the date appointed for its first meeting
and no longer.
(2) A Corporation constituted upon the dissolution of a
Corporation before the expiration of its duration, shall
continue for the remainder of the period for which the
10
(2022) 20 SCC 346
- 143 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
dissolved Corporation would have continued under sub-
section (1) had it not been so dissolved.
6A. Term of office of Councillors.-The term of office of
the Councillors shall be co-terminus with the duration of
the Corporation."
"20. Constitution of Standing Committee.-(1) The
Standing Committee shall consist of sixteen councillors.
(2) The Corporation shall at its first meeting after
general elections appoint sixteen persons out of its own
body to be members of the Standing Committee.
(3) One-half of the members of the Standing
Committee shall retire every succeeding year at noon
on the first day of the month in which the first meeting
of the Corporation mentioned in sub-section (2) was
held:
Provided that all the members of the Standing
Committee in office when general elections are held
shall retire from office on the election of a new
Committee under sub-section (2).
(4) The members who shall retire under sub-section (3)
one year after their election under sub-section (2) shall
be elected by lot at such time previous to the date for
retirement specified in sub-section (3) and in such
manner as the Chairman of the Standing Committee
may determine, and in succeeding years the members
who shall retire under this section shall be those who
have been longest in office:
Provided that, in the case of a member who has been
re-appointed, the term of his office for the purposes of
this sub-section shall be computed from the date of his
re-appointment.
(5) The Corporation shall at its meeting held in the
month preceding the date of retirement specified in
sub-section (3) appoint fresh members of the Standing
- 144 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
Committee to fill the offices of those who are due to
retire on the said date.
(6) Any Councillor who ceases to be a member of the
Standing Committee shall be eligible for re-
appointment."
"Section 25. Appointment of Transport Committee.-(1)
In the event of the Corporation acquiring or establishing
a Transport Undertaking, there shall be a Transport
Committee consisting of thirteen members for the
purpose of conducting the said undertaking in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and subject
to the conditions and limitations as are contained
therein.
(2) The Corporation shall at its first meeting after a
Transport Undertaking is acquired or established,
appoint twelve members of the Transport Committee
from among persons who in the opinion of the
Corporation have had experience of, and shown
capacity in, administration or transport or in
engineering, industrial, commercial, financial or labour
matters and who may or may not be councillors.
***
(5) One-half of the members of the Transport Committee appointed by the Corporation shall retire in every second year on the first day of the month in which the meeting referred to in sub-section (2) was held:
Provided that, in the case of a councillor appointed a member of the Transport Committee, if at any time before the date of his retirement he ceases to be a councillor, he shall cease to be such member, and his office shall thereupon become vacant. The vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (9), as if it had occurred under Section 26......"
"29A. Constitution of Wards Committees.- .....
- 145 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS (2) Each Wards Committee shall consist of -
(a) the councillors representing the electoral wards within the territorial area of the Wards Committee;
(b) the officer incharge of the territorial area of the Wards Committee;
(c) such number of other members not exceeding three, nominated by the Councillors referred to in clause (a), from amongst the members of recognised non-
Government Organisations and Community based organisations engaged in social welfare activities working within the area of the Wards Committee:
Provided that such persons are registered as electors in the wards within the jurisdiction of the Wards Committee:
Provided further that the norms for recognition of the Non-Government Organisations, the requisite qualification for nomination as members and the manner in which they are to be nominated shall be such as the State Government may prescribe.
(3) The duration of the Wards Committees shall be co-
terminus with the duration of the Corporation......"
"Section 452. Power of State Government to dissolve Corporation.
(1) If at any time upon representation made or otherwise it appears to the State Government that the Corporation is not competent to perform, or persistently makes default in the performance of, the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force or exceeds or abuses it powers, the State Government may, after having given the Corporation an opportunity to show cause why such order should not be made, by an order published, with the reasons therefor, in the Official Gazette dissolve the Corporation with effect from the date to be specified in the Order,
- 146 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS (2) With effect from the date specified in the order passed under sub-section (1) or with effect from the date on which the Corporation stands dissolved under the proviso to article 243-ZF, the following consequences shall ensue:-
(a) ***
(b) ***
(c) all powers and duties of the Corporation, the Standing Committee, the Transport Committee and all other committees constituted under the Act, shall, during the period of dissolution be exercised and performed by such Government Officer or Officers as the State Government may, from time to time, appoint in this behalf;
(d) on dissolution of the Corporation all the property vested in the Corporation shall vest in the State Government.
(e) the person or persons appointed under clause (c) may delegate his or their powers and duties to an individual of a committee or sub-committee.
(f) the Government Officer or Officers appointed under clause (c), and the individual or the members of the committee or sub-committee referred to in clause (e) shall receive such remuneration from the Municipal Fund as the State Government may from time to time determine.
(3) *** (4) The Corporation shall be re-constituted by election of councillors at general ward elections within the time specified for the purpose in clause (b) of section 6B:
Provided that the person or persons appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (2) shall continue to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Corporation, the Standing, Committee and, as the case may be, the Transport Committee until the first meeting of the Corporation constituted by the election of councillors as aforesaid shall have been held.
Section 452A. Power of State Government to appoint Government officer or officers to exercise powers and perform functions and duties of Corporation.
- 147 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS (1) For every Municipal Corporation deemed to have been constituted or constituted for a larger urban area under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, of section 3, the State Government may appoint a Government officer or officers to exercise all the powers and to perform all the functions and duties of a Corporation under this Act:
xxx xxx xxx (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the State Election Commission has brought to the notice of the State Government that it is not possible for the State Election Commission to conduct the general elections to the Corporation due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in the State, then the State Government may, by order, appoint a Government officer or officers, or extend the period of any officer appointed under sub-section (1), for such period as may be requested by the State Election Commission, which shall not extend beyond the 30th April 2021, to exercise all the powers and to perform all the functions and duties of the Corporation under this Act.
(1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the State Election Commission has brought to the notice of the State Government that it is not possible for it to conduct the general elections to the Corporation within the period specified in the order issued under sub-section (1A), due to COVID-19 pandemic situation in the State, then the State Government may, by order, appoint a Government officer or officers, or extend the period of any officer appointed under sub-section (1), for such period as may be requested by the State Election Commission, for exercising all the powers and performing all the functions and duties of the Corporation under this Act. (2) The officer or officers appointed under sub-section (1) shall hold office until the first meeting of the Corporation or for a period of six months from the date of specification of an area as a larger urban area, under sub-section (2) of section 3, whichever is earlier:
- 148 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS Provided that the Administrator deemed to have been appointed as the Government officer under sub-section (1) shall hold office until the first meeting of the Corporation.
xxx xxx xxx"
18.3 The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 "48. The Standing Committee in existence on the day for the retirement of councillors shall continue to hold office until such time as a new Standing Committee is appointed under section 43, notwithstanding that the members of the said Committee or some of them may no longer be Councillors."
20. When it is apparent that the duration of the Corporation itself is for a period of five years and no longer, as per the mandate of Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India, duly reflected in Section 6 of the Act of 1949; and the term of the office of Councillors has specifically been provided to be coterminous with the duration of Corporation in Section 6A of the Act of 1949; and then, the Standing Committee is to be consisting of "sixteen Councillors", we are unable to find any logic in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the term of the Corporation comes to an end and even when the term of office of the Councillors comes to an end yet, the Standing Committee as existing on the date of completion of the terms of Corporation and Councillors shall continue to be in office until composition of the new Committee after elections. When no person could be said to be holding the office of the Councillor after completion of the term in view of the mandate of Sections 6 and 6A of the Act of 1949, it follows as a necessary corollary that the Standing Committee stands dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation.
21. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act of 1949 essentially comes in operation only in
- 149 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS the eventuality when there are existing members of the Standing Committee in office when general elections are held and they are to retire on the election of a new Committee, i.e., at the first meeting of the Corporation after general elections. The proviso cannot be read to mean that notwithstanding the expiration of the duration of a Corporation and thereby, termination of the term of office of the Councillors, there could still be any Standing Committee in existence. It gets perforce iterated that the Standing Committee stands dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation.
22. The other contention urged on behalf of the appellant by comparison of Sections 452 and 452A of the Act, particularly that no akin provision as that of Section 452(2)(c) is found in Section 452A, is also devoid of logic and substance. The provision of Section 452 essentially operates in relation to the contingency where the State Government takes the steps for dissolution of the existing Corporation after opportunity of show cause upon being satisfied that the Corporation is not competent to perform the duties imposed upon it or is persistently making default or is abusing its powers. Sub-sections (1A) and (1B) of Section 452A of the Act, which are operating in the present case, deal with a specific peculiar contingency where general elections could not be held during the time specified by the enactment even after the expiry of the term of the Corporation, essentially due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. Appointing of Administrator in such a contingency does not and cannot override the mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of Sections 6 and 6A of the Act as regards the tenure. As already noticed, end of the tenure of Corporation has its consequential effect of the end of the term of the office of the Councillor; and when no person including the present appellant could be said to be holding the office of Councillor after end of the term of the Corporation, existence of any Standing Committee thereafter, is simply out of question. Any other interpretation, in our view, shall be standing at
- 150 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS conflict with the mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Sections 6 and 6A of the 1949 Act."
36.6. By relying on Hemant Narayan Rasne's case, he again submits that when the duration of the Corporation itself is for a period of 5 years and no longer, as per Article 243U (1) of the Constitution, the term would expire after the period of 5 years 36.7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Anjali Sanjay Kuligod vs. the State of Karnataka11 more particularly Paras 4, 5, 6, 16 and 17 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
4. After constituting the Municipal Councils, the election to the post of President and Vice President has been held on 02.07.2016 for the term of 30 months and same came to an end on 31.12.2018.
5. Thereafter the State Government has issued notification on 03.09.2018 for reservation of seat of President and Vice President for second term and the same has been challenged before this Court on various grounds by the other Councillors of the Municipal Councils. The petitioners have not approached any Court of law and they were not parties in those proceedings.11 WP No.102217/2021
- 151 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS Since the matter was pending before this Court, no election has been held to the Post of President and Vice President. Since, office of President and Vice President fell vacant. The Tahasildar perform the function of the President under Section 42(5) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short)
6. Thereafter in the month of November 2020, the election to the post of President and Vice President for the second term has been held. Before completing the term of the petitioners, the impugned notification has been issued by appointing the administrator on the ground that the 5 years term of the Councillors of the Municipal Councils is expired. Hence, the petitioners have given a representation to the respondents to extend their term. Since no order has been passed on their representations, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petitions seeking direction to the respondents to extend their term. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to consider the representation. The respondents by order dated 03.06.2021 have rejected the request of the petitioners for extension of term of President and Vice President. Being aggrieved by the same, they are before this Court.
16. The petitioners are the Councillors of various Municipal Councils. The election to the various Municipal Councils has been held in the month of April, 2016. The term of the Councillors of the Municipal Councils is for tenure of 5 years fixed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. Section 18(1)(a) of the said Act reads as follows:
"18. Term of office of Councillors.- (1) the term of office of a councilor,-
(a) Elected at a general election shall be five years;"
This Section is enacted in terms of the mandate of Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India which is as follows:
"243U. Duration of Municipalities, etc.
- 152 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS (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:"
The language of Article 243U and Section 41 of the Act, place no manner of doubt that in any circumstances, the tenure of the elected body of the municipalities cannot be longer than five years. This becomes apparent by the expression and no longer employed in the said articles, the tenure of the 5 years is constitutionally prescribed policy.
17. In view of the above, no writ can be issued to continue the tenure of the elected body beyond 5 years. Therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the request of the petitioners by issuing endorsement vide Annexure-H. 36.8. By relying on Anjali Sanjay Kuligod's case, he submits that in that matter, election to the post of President and Vice President had been held on 2.7.2016 and the first term of 30 months came to an end on 31.12.2018, a notification issued on 3.9.2018 for reservation for President and Vice President for second term had been challenged, there being stay of proceedings, it is only in November 2020 that elections to the post of President and Vice President could be held for
- 153 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
the second term. A request having been made
for extension of the term, the same came to be rejected, and this Court, on a challenge being made, has categorically come to a conclusion that the language of Article 243U and Section 41 of the Act would place no manner of doubt that the tenure of the elected body of the municipalities cannot be longer than five years, and hence rejected the writ petition. His submission is that the said decision would apply on all fours to the present matter.
36.9. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman Lakappa Ningannavar vs. The State of Karnataka12 more particularly Para 3 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the papers, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:12 WA No.100111/2021
- 154 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
(a) The tenure of elected local bodies like the panchayat & municipality, regardless of their varying nomenclatures is constitutionally fixed as being 'five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer' vide the Constitution (Seventy Third Amendment) Act, 1992 w.e.f. 24.04.1993 & the Constitution (Seventy Fourth Amendment) Act 1992 w.e.f. 01.06.1993; acceding to the prayer of the writ petitioners and thereby directing the respondent-State & the Election Commission to extend the tenure of these bodies militates against the constitutional mandate; it has been a well settled position of constitutional jurisprudence that no writ can issue to do what the law does not permit; this inarticulate premise has animated the impugned orders, absence of elaborate discussion therein, not withstanding.
(b) The vehement submission of appellant-writ petitioners that in the absence of an enabling provision in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, if Government can appoint the Administrators when statutorily prescribed prerequisites are lacking, it is open to the Government to issue appropriate orders for elongating the tenure of the elected body or its office bearers, cannot be countenanced; the observations of the Apex Court in Kishansing Tomar V. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahamadabad (2006) 8 SCC 352 do not lend support to such a wide proposition; our constitution envisages a limited government that can do what is permitted or sanctioned by law either expressly or by necessary implication; contention advanced on behalf of the applicants offends this well established norm.
(c) In Kishansingh Tomar, supra the Apex Court having discussed the object of Seventy Fourth Amendment to the Constitution expressed its anguish against delaying and postponing of elections to the local bodies in many States; at paragraph 14, it observed that it is incumbent upon the Election Commission and other authorities to carry out the mandate of the Constitution that the duration of the municipality having been fixed as five year; the new municipality has to be constituted in time by holding periodical elections before the expiry of this duration; at paragraph 21, the Court only recognized certain exceptional circumstances that may justify delayed elections beyond the period of five years mandatorily fixed under Article 243-U; the last four lines in the paragraph being pertinent are reproduced below:
- 155 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS "... It is only when the municipality is dissolved for any other reason and 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 elections for constituting the municipality for such period."
(d) More than a century ago, Lord Halsbury in the celebrated case of Quinn V. Leathem, 1901 AC 495 had emphasized that a decision is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down, and not for all that which logically follows from what has been so laid down;
there is nothing in the decision cited at the Bar even remotely supportive of the contention of the writ petitioners that the Government and the State Election Commission have power to extend the tenure of elected local bodies of the kind in any circumstances whatsoever; the text & context of Seventy Third & Seventy Fourth amendments to the Constitution do not leave even a shadow of such power.
(e) It hardly needs to be stated that the voters/electors elect their representatives to the local bodies for the tenure prescribed by the Constitution and the statute under which they are constituted; these representatives have the popular mandate for the specified tenure and not beyond that; this tenure sometimes may be cut short by operation of law or by an act authorized by law; that in such a gratuitous situation the popular mandate is shortened is true; however, the reverse logic that if the popular mandate can be cut short, it can be elongated too, in extraordinary situation like the COVID- 19 Pandemic is difficult to agree with; in the militant absence of statutory enablement, if the Government & the Election Commission accede to the request of the writ petitioners, that amounts to they donning the mantle of voters/electors; this offends the rudiments of democracy, which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution vide Kesavananda Bharti (1973)4 SCC 225. 36.10. By relying on Laxman Lakappa Ningannavar's case, he submits that the interpretation is required to be given to any judgment would be
- 156 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS on the basis of the facts of that judgment, and this Court ought to consider the present facts to apply the decisions relied upon by the petitioners, more so when there are categorical decisions to the contra than that relied upon by the petitioners.
37. Heard Sri.Mruthunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.106387/2025 and 105784/2025, Sri.Shivaraj Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.106726/2025, 106716/2025 and 107109/2025, Sri.Anoop Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.106273/2025, Sri.Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.106887/2025. All the other counsels for the petitioners have adopted the submission of the above- arguing counsel. Heard Sri.J.M.Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused papers.
38. The points that would arise for consideration are:
- 157 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
i) Whether the term of the elected councillors can be extended beyond a period of five years, more so in view of the mandate under Article 243U of the Constitution?
ii) Whether the petitioner, not having challenged the order appointing an administrator under Section 315 of the Municipalities Act, could now seek to challenge the appointment of the said administrator?
iii) Could the time period during which the administrator was in office be required to be excluded from calculating the term of office of the council?
iv) Whether the notification issued by the State to hold elections would impinge on any of the rights of the petitioners?
v) What order?
39. I answer the above points as follows:
40. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the term of the elected councillors can be extended beyond a period of five years, more so in view of the mandate under Article 243U of the Constitution? 40.1. Article 243U of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 158 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS Article 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.
40.2. A perusal of Article 243U(1) of the Constitution would indicate that every municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time
- 159 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS being enforced, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.
40.3. The proviso to Article 243U(1) requires the municipality to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. That is to say, the proviso applies only if a dissolution were to happen prior to the five-year term. 40.4. The mandate of Article 243U(1) is clear in that the term of the municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. There is no distinction made between two sessions or three sessions or the like. The term of the Municipality is one standard period of five years. In terms of Article 243U, it is required that an election to constitute a municipality shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in Clause (1) or before the expiration of a period of six months
- 160 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS 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. 40.5. Thus, again Clause (3) of Article 243U provides for the duration to be five years and only if the municipality is dissolved, leaving more than six months as a balanced tenure, then elections will not have to be held, and if the balance tenure is less than six months, elections would have to be held immediately.
40.6. What is more important is Clause (4) of Article 243U, which provides that even where a municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a municipality before the expiration of a duration, the same shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved municipality
- 161 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS would have continued under Clause (1) had it not been so dissolved. Thus, even in the case of dissolution under Clause (4) of Article 243U, the period of dissolution is not excluded for the purpose of calculating the completion of the term. The period of dissolution is also included, and after inclusion, the remainder of the period for which the municipality would have continued is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the term of the municipality. 40.7. This being the position of law in terms of Article 243U, the same has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.K.Rama Murthy's case and while interpreting Clause (1) of Article 243U, the Hon'ble Division Bench has come to a categorical conclusion that the term of the Corporation would be five years and no longer. It is that phrase "and no longer" which has been interpreted very succinctly by the
- 162 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS Hon'ble Division Bench and this Court has come to a categorical conclusion that irrespective of what may happen, the term can be five years and no longer.
40.8. Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Singh Tomar's case, where the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the municipality, came to a conclusion that the term fixed for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer would require the calculation of the set term of five years to be made from the date on which the first meeting was fixed.
40.9. The Hon'ble Apex Court again in Hemant Narayan Rasne's case while dealing with a situation where exemption was sought for, in respect of the covid pandemic when administrator was appointed came to a conclusion that even the covid period cannot be
- 163 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS excluded to calculate the term of the municipality and in terms of Clause (1) of Article 243U, despite Covid the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the term would expire after a period of five years from date fixed for the first meeting. 40.10. A Coordinate Bench of this court in Anjali Sanjay Kuligod's case when there was a delay in the earlier term, that is the term commencing from 2016, the first session of 30 months having come to an end on 31.12.2018, reservation having been notified on 3.9.2018, proceedings having been filed before various Courts, and the notification of reservation having been stayed, elections were held much subsequently. Even there, a Coordinate Bench came to a conclusion that the term under Clause (1) of Article 243U can only be five years and no longer. 40.11. The decisions which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am afraid,
- 164 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS will not be of much assistance to them in view of the above categorical judgments on the matter. The decision in Kiran Pal Singh's case has been relied upon for the purpose of placing on record the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing the 73rd amendment and on that basis, Sri.Mruthunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel, has contended that the tenure of five years would have to be made available to the councillors. His contention is that such tenure of five years would have to exclude any break in the tenure. The said argument is contrary to the dicta laid down in Anjali Sanjay Kuligod's case, where the stay by this Court was not taken into consideration for extending the term as also the decision in Hemant Narayan Rasne's case, where even COVID-19 did not result in extension of the term, would negate this interpretation.
- 165 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS 40.12. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Vishwanath Akhandappa's case to contend that it is only after the date for the first meeting of the second term is fixed that the period of second term would commence and as such, the date of fixing of the meeting for the first term cannot be taken into consideration for calculating of the entire term of five years.
40.13. This is an artificial distinction which is sought to be made out by Mr.Bangi, learned counsel inasmuch as in Vishwanath Akhandappa's case, what was dealt with was the establishment of an interim municipal council on account of the conversion of a panchayat into a municipality. That situation is completely different from the present situation inasmuch as, on the conversion of a panchayath to a municipal council, there are various modalities which have to be followed. In the present case, none of the municipalities has
- 166 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS arisen due to the upgradation of a panchayat or the like.
40.14. In the above background, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the term of elected councillors cannot be extended beyond a period of five years in terms of mandate under Clause (1) of Article 243U of the Constitution.
41. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the petitioner, not having challenged the order appointing an administrator under Section 315 of the Municipalities Act, could now seek to challenge the appointment of the said administrator? 41.1. Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
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
- 167 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS [(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, the State Government shall 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 [so however, the total period of such appointment shall not exceed six months]. (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. 41.2. By relying on Clause (a), (b) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 315, it is sought to be
- 168 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
contended that it is only under those
circumstances that an administrator could be appointed under Section 315. Since none of those circumstances are attracted in the present matter, the question of appointment of an administrator would not arise. The circumstances under Clause (a) being if any general election to a municipal council had been stayed by an order of a competent court or authority. Under Clause
(b), being the election of all councillors or more than two-thirds of the whole number of councillors of the municipal council having been declared by a competent court or authority to be void or under Clause (d), all the councillors or more than two-thirds of the whole number of councillors of the municipal council having resigned.
41.3. The submission learned counsel for the petitioners being that none of these three fact
- 169 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS situations have been attracted, the question of appointment of an administrator pending the finalization of reservation and or an account of stay of the reservation would not entitle the State to appoint an administrator. 41.4. I am unable to agree with this submission for the reason that a challenge having been made to the reservation, until that challenge were to be decided, the question of holding any elections would not arise. Therefore, the same, in effect, was a stay on the elections to be conducted and as such, in my considered opinion, would come under Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section
315. 41.5. Be that as it may, at the time when such an appointment of an administrator was made, none of the present petitioners had challenged the appointment of an administrator, but continued to litigate the challenge made to the reservation.
- 170 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS Thus, at the relevant point of time, there being no challenge made to the appointment of an administrator, it is only now, when the entire term of the municipality is coming to an end, that this ground has been taken up, and in a few of the matters, a challenge has been made to the appointment of an administrator, belatedly, and as such, in my considered opinion, the appointment of an administrator has been acquiesced to by the petitioners and the challenge now made is hit by delay and latches. Thus, in the present case, all three elements, that is, acquiescence, delay and latches, would disentitle the petitioners from any equitable consideration.
41.6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Kalpana Manjunath's case that was again a decision relating to an interim municipal council coming into existence by reason of the
- 171 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701
WP No. 106387 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025
WP No. 105784 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
conversion of panchayat areas into Town
Municipal Councils, attracting subsection (2) of Section 358, which is not the case in the present matter.
41.7. Reliance has been placed on V.Subba Reddy's case to contend that it is only under the circumstances detailed in subsection (1) of Section 315 that an administrator could be appointed. This contention has been dealt with hereinabove by me and for that reason I hold that the decision in V.Subba Reddy's case does not apply to the present matter. Reliance is placed on Usha Mahesh Dasar's case to contend that there is a distinction in an administrator appointed under Section 42 of the Municipalities Act and an administrator appointed under subsection (1) of Section 315.
41.8. Sub-section (11) of Section 42 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 172 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
42. President and Vice-President:-
(11) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the President and Vice-President shall hold office for a period of thirty months from the date of their election, provided that in the mean-time they do not cease to be councillors.
41.9. By relying on subsection (11) of Section 42, it is sought to be contended that the president and vice-president shall hold office for a period of 30 months from the date of their election and on that basis, it is contended by Sri.Shivaraj Balolli that there is a guarantee of a period of 30 months even for the second term. I am unable to accept this argument as held supra the term of the municipality under Clause (1) of Article 243U is five years from the date of the first meeting, the Constitution not providing for splitting of the term merely because the Municipalities Act provides for it cannot dilute the requirements of the Constitution.
- 173 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS 41.10. Article 243U of the Constitution will on any day override Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and any provision in any enactment contrary to the provision of the Constitution would be ultra vires to the Constitution.
41.11. In that view of the matter, I answer Point No.2 by holding that the petitioners, not having challenged the order appointing an administrator under Section 315 of the Municipalities Act, at the time of such appointment or soon thereafter cannot now seek to continue to hold office on the ground that the initial appointment of an administrator was allegedly bad in law. I have come to the conclusion that the appointment of an administrator under subsection (1) of Section 315 is proper and valid.
42. Answer to Point No.3: Could the time period during which the administrator was in office be
- 174 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS required to be excluded from calculating the term of office of the council?
42.1. Much has been sought to be made out as regards the time period to be excluded by juxtaposing Section 315 with subsection (5) of Section 42. Both provisions have been extracted hereinabove. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to subsection (5) of Section 42 is that during a vacancy in the office of the president of a municipal council, and where there is no vice president to take his place or if a vice president fails to assume charge of the office of the president which has fallen vacant, then without prejudice to any action under subsection (10) of Section 42, the Deputy Commissioner or the person performing the duties of the Deputy Commissioner for the time being in the case of a City Municipal Council and, in the case of Town
- 175 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS Municipal Council any officer nominated by him in this behalf not below the rank of the Municipal Commissioner, etc., shall perform the function of the president.
42.2. Based on subsection (5) of Section 42, it is sought to be contended that it is only if the President and Vice President are unable to perform their obligations and or discharge their duties or assume charge of the office, that the Deputy Commissioner or the person nominated, depending on the various situations enumerated therein, would perform the function of the President.
42.3. Thus, it is contended that though the Deputy Commissioner would perform the duties of a President of the Municipality, the Council would continue to be in session, the Deputy Commissioner only discharging the role of the President, the Council would be in session with
- 176 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS all the councillors exercising their rights as councillors.
42.4. Whereas under Section 315, it is contended that an administrator once appointed, the council is no longer in session, the councillors would no longer be able to exercise their powers as councillors, and as such, during a term when the administrator is in office, the councillors not being able to discharge their functions as councillors, that period is required to be excluded.
42.5. Though at first blush, this argument sounds very inviting, the fact remains that this argument would have to be considered in relation to Clause (1) of Article 243U. The scope, ambit and import of Clause (1) of Article 243U being to the knowledge of the petitioners and all those who had challenged the reservation, knowing fully well that an administrator had been appointed, it
- 177 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS was to their knowledge that the clock was continuing to tick and the longer it took for the resolution of the matter, the term of the council continuing to tick, would become shorter. 42.6. The councillors, by themselves, challenging the reservations, cannot now take the benefit of contending that the term would continue, since the President and Vice President, being unable to be appointed, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have discharged his roles as the President with the Council continuing.
42.7. As indicated supra, in my answer to Point No.2, there was no challenge made to the appointment of Administrator, nor did any of the councillors who were before this Court contend that it should be subsection (5) of Section 42 which would apply and not subsection (1) of Section
315. It is only when the term is coming to an end that this argument is sought to be advanced
- 178 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS by interpreting the provision in the manner as done.
42.8. Clause (1) of Article 243U, not contemplating any exclusion of the period during which an administrator was appointed, and in fact, Clause (4) of Article 243U, not even excluding the period in which the Municipal Council was dissolved, would clearly, categorically and unimpeachably establish that there is no provision for exclusion of any period, be it with the appointment of administrator or otherwise, for calculating the term of office of the Council. 42.9. Hence, I answer Point No.3 by holding that the time period during which the administrator was in office, an administrator appointed under subsection (1) of Section 315, cannot be excluded for calculating the term of office of the council.
- 179 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
43. Answer to Point No.4: Whether the notification issued by the State to hold elections would impinge on any of the rights of the petitioners? 43.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1 to 3, it is clear that the term of office was coming to an end, and in terms of clause (2) of Article 243, there is a requirement to hold elections before the expiration of a period of 6 months from the date of dissolution. As the term of the five-year Council is coming to an end, it is required that elections be held to constitute the next Council. The steps taken by issuing a notification to hold elections are the proper thing to do by the State. No fault can be found with the said actions, and as such, issuance of notification would not impinge on any rights of the petitioner. 43.2. Hence, I answer Point No.4 by holding that the notification issued by the State to hold elections would not impinge on any rights of the petitioners.
- 180 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15701 WP No. 106387 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105638 of 2025 WP No. 105784 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 23 OTHERS
44. Answer to Point No.5: What order?
44.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1 to 4 above, it being clear that the term of office of the City Municipal Council, being a period of five years and no longer, there could not be any exclusion of the time period during which the administrator was in office. There being a stay of the reservation notification satisfying the requirements of Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 315, the present writ petitions do not make out any ground, and as such, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1