Karnataka High Court
Shri Jayant Jadhav S/O Balkrishna ... vs Regional Commissioner on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633
WP No. 106744 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106744 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. JAYANT JADHAV S/O BALKRISHNA JADHAV,
AGE: 39 YEARS, R/O: H.NO. 52,
HOSUR BASAVANAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590 006.
2. SHRI. MANGESH PAWAR S/O NARAYAN PAWAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O: NO. 447,
NAZAR CAMP, 3RD CROSS,
VADAGAON, BELAGAVI- 590 005.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, COURT COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI- 590 002.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT, COURT COMPOUND,
MANJANNA BELAGAVI- 590 002.
E
3. COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION, SUBHASH NAGAR,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA BELAGAVI- 590 016.
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.23 11:01:12
+0530
4. SHRI. RAJKUMAR TOPANNAVAR,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED: MAJOR, R/AT: BELAGAVI- 590 010,
"SKANDA", 4857/65/4, LAST BUS STOP,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI. NITIN R. BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633
WP No. 106744 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
26.08.2025 BEARING NO. PRAABE/K.M.C/VIVA 08/2025-26 ISSUED TO
PETITIONER NO. 1 AT ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA) The petitioners, who are elected Councillors of the Belagavi City Corporation, have called in question the show- cause notices dated 26.08.2025 (Annexures-A and A1) issued by respondent No.1-the Regional Commissioner under Section 19 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the KMC Act' for short), alleging non-disclosure of assets and proposing action of disqualification. Brief facts:
2. A complaint was lodged alleging that the petitioners failed to disclose certain properties in their declaration of assets as required under Section 19 (1) of the -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR KMC Act. Acting upon the said complaint, the Commissioner forwarded the matter to the Regional Commissioner, who issued the impugned show-cause notices proposing action under Section 19 (2) of the KMC Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Commissioner is neither a member of the corporation nor competent under the statutory scheme to initiate such proceedings, and that the impugned notices are without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that under Section 7 of the KMC Act, the Corporation consists of elected Councillors. Under Section 14, the Commissioner is an Executive Officer appointed by the Government and is not a member of the Corporation. He further submits that under Section 19 (1), every Councilor shall file a declaration of assets and under Section 19 (2) of the KMC Act, failure to file and filing of a false declaration results in cessation of office and under Section 19(3) of the KMC Act, any question as to whether such disqualification has occurred shall be -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR decided by the Government upon a reference made by the Corporation. It is contended that the Commissioner has no statutory authority to initiate or refer disqualification proceedings and that only the deliberative body of the corporation can make a reference under Section 19 (3) of the KMC Act and therefore, the impugned show-cause notices issued at the instant of the Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that Section 19 of the KMC Act has been enacted to ensure probity, transparency and accountability in public life. The provision mandates strict compliance with disclosure requirements, and non-
disclosure strikes at the very root of clean governance. It is contended that Section 19 (2) of the KMC Act clearly provides that if a Councillor fails to file the declaration within the stipulated time or files a declaration which is false or incorrect, he 'shall cease to be a Councillor'. The -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR language being mandatory, cessation is automatic and does not depend upon prior adjudication. It is contended that when a complaint is received regarding non-disclosure or false disclosure, the Commissioner being the Chief Executive Authority of the Corporation under Section 14 is duty bound to examine the matter and take necessary steps and the Commissioner cannot be a silent spectator when statutory violations are brought to his notice. He further submits that the Regional Commissioner acts as a delegate to State Government in matters concerning disqualification and therefore, issuance of show-cause notices is only a preliminary step to ascertain facts before the final decision is taken. It is submitted that the issue concerned public accountability of elected representatives and the Courts should not interfere at the preliminary stage when statutory process has been initiated in furtherance of public interest. It is contended that the Commissioner, being the administrative head, is competent to place material before the appropriate authority and call for explanation. The -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR impugned notice is only a show-cause notice and not a final order of disqualification.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
"i. Whether the Commissioner is competent to initiate proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice in respect of an alleged disqualification under Section 19 of the KMC Act?
ii. Whether cessation of councillorship under Section 19(2) is automatic or whether a determination by State Government under Section 19 (3), upon reference made by the Corporation is mandatory, where a question arises regarding such cessation?
7. Section 19 of the KMC Act reads as under:
19. Declaration of assets etc.-(1) Every councillor 1[referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7] shall, not later than one month after the commencement of his term of office and in the same month of each succeeding year, file with the Mayor a declaration of all assets owned by him and -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR any member of his family. Such declaration shall form part of the Corporation records.
(2) If any Councillor fails to file the declaration referred to in sub-section (1) or files the same knowing it to be false or incorrect he shall cease to be a Councillor.
(3) Any question whether
disqualification under sub-section (2) has
occurred shall be decided, on reference made by the Corporation, by Government and the decision of Government thereon, shall be final.
8. A plain reading of Section 19 of the KMC Act makes the statutory scheme unambiguous. Sub-section 1 requires every Councillor to file a declaration of assets with the Mayor. Sub-section 2 provides that upon failure to file such a declaration or upon filing a declaration which is false or incorrect, the Councillor shall cease to hold office. However, sub-section 3 expressly stipulates that any question as to whether such cessation has occurred shall be decided by the Government on a reference made by the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR Corporation, and the decision of the Government shall be final.
9. The statutory mechanism is further clarified by Rule 77 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Procedure for the Conduct of Business of the Corporation and Committees) Rules, 1998 ('1998 Rules' for short), which specifically provides that the Mayor shall cause the information regarding the failure of any Councillor to file declaration of assets under Section 19 to be placed before the House for reference to the Government under Section 19 (3).
10. The term corporation refers to the body corporate consisting of elected Councillors. Section 14 of the KMC Act provides for appointment of a Commissioner by the State Government. Section 14 reads as under:
"14. Commissioner and his term of office, etc.- (1) The Commissioner shall be appointed by the Government after consultation with the Mayor. He shall not be a member of the corporation and he -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR shall, subject to the pleasure of the Government, ordinarily hold office for a period of two years.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall be removed from office whenever the corporation so resolves by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its members."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In Section 7, the term 'Corporation' consists of the elected Councilor and not the Commissioner appointed under Section 14. The Commissioner is an executive officer of the Corporation and is neither a member of the Corporation nor vested with adjudicatory powers under Section 19. Thus, the statutory scheme contemplates two stage processes. (i) The Corporation must consider the matter and make a reference and (ii) The State Government alone is the competent authority to adjudicate upon the question of cessation.
12. In the absence of a reference by a corporation, initiation of proceedings by the Commissioner or issuance of show-cause notices at his instance is de hors the statutory
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR framework and without jurisdiction. While Section 19 (2) issues the expression 'shall cease' the presence of Section 19 (3) makes it clear that whenever a question arises as to such cessation, adjudication by the Government upon a reference is mandatory. The cessation is not self-executing in disputed situations and it must follow the statutory procedure.
13. This Court hastens to clarify that the object of Section 19 is to ensure probity, transparency and accountability in local self governance. This Court is not condoning any act of non-disclosure. However, even in matters involving probity in public life, the procedure prescribed by statute must be strictly adhered to. When a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Commissioner is not the competent authority to initiate or adjudicate proceedings under Section 19. The appropriate authority to decide the question of cessation is
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR the State Government under Section 19 (3) of the KMC Act, upon a valid reference by the Corporation, which, as stated supra, consists of the body of Corporators comprising the elected Councillors. The impugned show-cause notices being issued by the Regional Commissioner is without following the statutory procedure and is without jurisdiction.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned show-cause notices dated 26.08.2025 (Annexures-A and A1) issued by the Regional Commissioner at the instance of the Commissioner are hereby quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
iii. It is held that the Commissioner, being an executive authority under Section 14 of the KMC Act is not a competent authority to initiate or adjudicate proceedings under Section 19 of the KMC Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2633 WP No. 106744 of 2025 HC-KAR iv. It is clarified that the appropriate authority to decide any question of cessation under Section 19 (2) is the State Government under Section 19 (3), upon a valid reference made by the Corporation.
v. It is open to the Corporation if it deems it appropriate to place the matter before the House and take action strictly in accordance with Section 19 (3) of the Act and Rule 77 of the 1998, Rules.
vi. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegation relating to non-disclosure of assets. The statutory authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37