Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manorama S/O Mahesh Sugate vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2026
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100753 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.100760 OF 2025
IN W.P.NO.100753/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SONAL
W/O. RAJESH KOTHADIYA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
2. SRI. SANTOSH
S/O. HINDURAV SANGAVKAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: VICE- PRESIDENT,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 237.
Digitally signed 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR S/O. KAMALAKAR GIRE,
Location: High AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
Court of
Karnataka, R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
Dharwad Bench DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
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,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
6. SMT. PRABHAVATI
W/O.. MAHESH SURYAVANSHI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
7. SRI. SADDAM
S/O. SALIM NAGARJI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
8. SRI. VILAS
S/O. LAKSHMAN GADIVADDAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
9. SMT. SUNITA
W/O. VILAS GADDIVADDAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
10. SRI. JAYAWANT GANGARAM BHATALE,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
11. SMT. NEETA
S/O. VINOD BAGADE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
12. SMT. RANJANA
W/O. RAVINDRA INGAVALE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
13. SMT. GEETA
W/O. SUNIL PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
14. SMT. JASMIN W/O. JUBER BAGBAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
15. SMT. ARUNA
W/O. ABHINANDAN MUDUKUDE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
16. SMT. SUJATA
W/O. RAVINDRA KADAM,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, V.V TOWER,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C COMPOUND, BELAGAVI 590001.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARI ROAD,
SADASHIV NAGAR, ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
5. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REP/BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 237.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W
SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 10.11.2025 IN W.P.NO.107103/2025
AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN W.A.NO.100760/2025:
1. SRI. MANORAMA
S/O. MAHESH SUGATE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
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
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
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: COUNCILLOR,
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: COUNCILLOR,
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: COUNCILLOR,
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,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
11. SRI. CHIDANAND
S/O. APPASAHEB KARADANNAVAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
S/O. RAMESH KAMBALE,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
15. SRI. AMAR
S/O. MADUKAR NALAVADE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
16. SMT. SHRIVIDYA
W/O. RAJU BAMBARE,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
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,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
19. SRI. AJITH
S/O. ASHOK KARAJAGI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILLOR,
R/AT: SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
20. SRI. SHANKERAPPA
S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA SHIRKOLI,
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: COUNCILLOR,
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.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, V.V TOWER,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C. COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, NO 16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR,
ARAMANE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REP/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
SANKESHWAR, TAL: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 313.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W
SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. HAREESH NAYAK, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO,
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 10.11.2025 IN W.P.NO.107101/2025
AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB
WA No. 100753 of 2025
C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The writ Court by the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 has disposed of a series of writ petitions filed calling in question the Communication dated 27.01.2025 addressed by the Karnataka State Election Commission to the State Government to issue Reservation Notification for the general elections to constitute 195 City Municipal Councils [CMC] and Town Municipal Councils [TMC] and for directions to the State Government/ the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka State Election Commission to permit those who have been elected to the office of the President and Vice President in these CMC/ TMC to continue in such office for a period of 30 months. The writ petition in W.P No.107101/2025 is by the appellants in Writ Appeal No.100760/ 2025, and the writ petition in W.P No. 107103/2025 is by the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 100753/2025.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The general elections of the Councilors for the constitution of these 195 CMC/TMC is held in October 2020, and the Presidents and Vice Presidents for these local bodies are also elected. The Presidents and the Vice Presidents have been in office for 30 [thirty] months as contemplated under Section 42[11] of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 [for short, 'the KM Act']. There is a spate of litigation with the State Government publishing notifications reserving the posts of the President and Vice President, which has ultimately resulted in the Notification dated 05.08.2024.
3. This Notification dated 05.08.2024 is issued on the culmination of the litigation in this regard with the Apex Court's decision. After this Notification dated 05.08.2024, elections are held to the posts of President and Vice President in the CMC/TMC in September, 2024. Meantime, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 315 of the KM Act, has appointed administrators for each of this
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR CMC/TMC. These administrators have been in office for 15-16 months.
4. The term of the CMC/TMC, which are constituted for a period of five years with effect from 31.10.2020, must end as of 30.10.2025. It is in this context that the Karnataka State Election Commission has issued the impugned communication dated 27.1.2025. It is now brought on record that upon the expiry of five years as aforementioned, the State Government has once again appointed administrators in exercise of its powers under Section 315 of the KM Act and that the preparations are underway to hold elections to constitute the CMC/TMC.
5. The petitioners' case is based on the assertion that, as envisaged under Section 42[11] of the KM Act, they are entitled to hold the office of the President and Vice President of the corresponding CMC/TMC for 30 months and because they have been elected to these posts only in the month of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR September 2024, the elections for the constitution of the CMC/TMC cannot be held until they complete the 30 months. In fact, the appellants [the other petitioners] have sought for directions to the State Government/the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the State Election commission to permit them to complete their tenure [of 30 months] excluding the period during which administrators were in office when the dispute over reservation to these posts was being considered by the different courts resulting in the notification dated 05.08.2024. These, generally stated, are the facts relevant for the present purposes. The appellants, who were elected to Sankeshawara TMC and Nippani CMC [the two out of the 195 CMC/TMC], have continued their grievance with the writ Court dismissing their writ petitions and the other writ petitions.
6. The writ Court has framed questions such as whether the term of a Municipal Council can be extended beyond five years given the provisions of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR Article 243U of the Constitution of India and whether the petitioners, who were elected as the President/Vice President of the corresponding CMC and TMC and have not challenged the appointment of administrators during the year 2023-24, could challenge the appointment of administrator after the expiry of the tenure of these CMC/TMC.
7. The writ Court, emphasizing upon the significance of the expression 'no longer' in Article 243U of the Constitution of India and the decision of the Apex Court in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad1 and Hemanth Narayan Rasne v. Municipal Corporation of Pune2 has opined that the mandate under Article 243U is that the term of the Municipal Councils shall only be for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, and only because Section 42[11] of the KM Act contemplates two sessions of 30 1 [2006] 8 SCC 352 2 [2022] 20 SCC 346
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR months for one set of elected President/Vice President will not make any difference. The writ Court has observed that even according to a Co- ordinate Covid-19 did not result in any extension of the term of a Municipal Council beyond five years.
8. Mr. Mruthyanjaya Tata Bangi, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that Section 315[1] of the KM Act empowers the State Government to appoint an administrator, in the circumstances enumerated, for a maximum of six months with the stipulation that the appointment of an administrator shall not exceed six months, and in the present case it is undisputed that the administrators have been in office during the year 2023-24 for 15-16 months.
9. Mr. Mruthyanjaya Tata Bangi submits that these administrators have discharged the functions of the President/Vice President for a period in excess of six months notwithstanding the stipulation on the maximum period of six months,
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR and that this must be considered in examining whether the appellants are justified in contending that the term of the Sankeshwar TMC/ Nippanni CMC and the term of the President/Vice President of these CMC/ TMC should be extended corresponding to the additional months during which the Administrators were in office
10. Mr. Mruthyanjaya Tata Bangi canvasses that the Parliament in stipulating that the term of the Municipal Councils shall be no longer than five years did not intend that the tenure of the Municipal Councils, under no circumstance, can be beyond five years; and that this is obvious when Article 243U is read in juxtaposition with Article 83[2] of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submits that if the former Article mentions that the tenure of a Municipal Council cannot be any longer than five years without any further rigour, the latter Article, while using the same expression no longer, mentions that upon the expiration of the five years [for the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR House of People] shall operate as dissolution of the House. The learned counsel argues that it is obvious on this juxtaposed reading of these two constitutional provisions that the Parliament did not want the extreme rigour of confining the tenure to a specific period to be applied at the Democratic grassroots such as the Municipal Councils.
11. Mr. J M Gangadhar, a learned Additional Advocate General, arguing in support of the writ Court's impugned order submits that the appellants, like the other petitioners, did not challenge the appointment of Administrators during the year 2023- 2024, or their continuance beyond the period of six months and that they have also not sought extension of the term of the CMC/TMC which indisputably has expired, on completion of five years, in October 2025. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the appellants only seek extension of their tenure as the President/Vice President of Sankeswara TMC and Nippani CMC, and because the tenure of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR the office of the President/Vice President is dependent on the tenure of the concerned Municipal Council, the appellants cannot seek extension of their tenure as the President/Vice President.
12. Mr. J M Gangadhar argues that it is no longer res integra that the term of the office of a Councilor is coterminous with the term of the Municipal Council and that the Apex Court has reiterated this proposition while examining the merits of the contention that the Standing Committee constituted by such Council could continue even when the term of a Council has come to an end. In this regard, the learned additional Advocate General invites this Court's attention to paragraph 20 of the Apex Court's decision in Hemanth Narayan Rasne [supra].
13. In rejoinder, Mr. Mruthyanjaya Tata Bangi argues that this Court may consider the following.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR • In all the decisions, including the Apex Court's decision in Kishansing Tomar [supra], the question was whether the State Governments could defer holding elections to the Municipal Councils even after the expiry of the stipulated period, and therefore, the enunciation is that the terms of a Municipal Council should be five years and no longer.
• In the present case, the appellants have shown that the administrators were appointed and continued beyond the statutory six months because of exceptional circumstances with the challenge to the reservations and certain interim orders against holding elections.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR • If exceptional circumstances are shown, it would be permissible even with the stipulation under Article 243U of the Constitution of India to extend the tenure of a Municipal Council and therefore the tenure of the Office bearers.
14. This Court, to examine the merits of the appellants' case as canvassed, must refer to the following paragraphs in the Apex Court's decisions in Kishansing Tomar [supra] and Hemanth Naarayan Ranse [supra].
In Kishansing Tomar - [Paragraph No. 21] 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 (sic other) circumstance would the Election Commission
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR be justified in delaying the process of election after consulting the State Government 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 there under 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.
In Hemanth Naarayan Ranse [Paragraph No. 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 243-U(1) of the Constitution of India, duly reflected in Section 6 of the 1949 Act; and the term of the office of Councillors has specifically been provided to be coterminous with the duration of Corporation in Section 6- A of the 1949 Act; and then, the Standing
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 6-A of the 1949 Act, it follows as a necessary corollary that the Standing Committee stands dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation.
15. This Court must emphasize that three salient propositions emerge upon reading of these paragraphs viz., [i] the term of five years for a Municipal Council contemplated under Article 243U of the Constitution of India is mandatory and only under very exceptional circumstances such as a natural calamity, there could be delay in holding
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR elections, [ii] the term of councilor is coterminous with the term of municipal council, and [iii] the term of a Standing Committee/its chairman is also coterminous with the term of a Municipal Council.
16. Mr. Mruthyanjaya Tata Bangi is arguing for an incongruous position in contending that the Apex Court has underlined the first proposition when a litigant was seeking directions to the State Governments/Election Commission to hold elections without the delay and that this proposition cannot be applied in the present case where the tenure of the President and Vice President is cut short because of the continuance of Administrators beyond six months. This Court must opine that the law must be applied consistently irrespective of whether a litigant has approached the Courts for directions to the State Government [or the State Election Commissions] to hold elections for the constitution of a Municipal Council or for extension of the tenure of a Municipal Council or the Office Bearers. The law cannot be
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR change because a litigant seeks a particular relief based on the cause setup.
17. Further, the appellants have not challenged the continuance of the administrators beyond the sixth months during the year 2023-24 and have contested elections knowing that their tenure will not be for 30 [thirty] months. These two circumstances take their toll and the appellant cannot, after the lapse of their term, contend that there are exceptional circumstances that justify, notwithstanding the constitutionally mandated period of five years, the term of the CMC/TMC must be extended to extend their tenure as the President and Vice President. The three salient propositions must prevail in this case.
18. Mr. Mruthyanjaya Tata Bangi argues that Article 243U of the Constitution of India only reads "shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer:", unlike in Article
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR 83[2] of the Constitution of India which stipulates that the House of the People shall continue for five years and no longer and on expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House and as such. These Articles read as:
Article 243U. (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.
Article 83 (2)The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for 1 [five years] from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of [five years] shall operate as a dissolution of the House
19. However, this Court must observe that the Parliament in including Article 243U as Part IX-A by way of Constitution [74th Amendment] Act in 1992 with effect from 01.06.1993 has ensured that the tenure of every Municipal Council in the Country
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR under the different state enactments shall be uniform under the Constitution. The Apex Court in Kishansing Tomar [supra] has stated thus while referring to Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Constitution Amendment Bill It may be noted that Part IX-A was inserted in the Constitution by virtue of the Constitution (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 Parliament and thus the new provisions were added in the Constitution with a
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR 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
20. The two Articles are set in two different contexts, and they cannot be read in conjunction to conclude that the term of the Municipal Councils [and therefore, the terms of the President and Vice President] can readily be extended beyond the constitution mandated 5 years. The Apex Court has indicated what constitute exceptional circumstances and they are natural and certain calamitous situations. When an exception is made in a calamitous situation that will not disturb the stated legislative intent i.e., to ensure regular and fair conduct of elections without the nominated bodies continuing for long period. However, if in the present circumstances discussed, this proposition is invoked, this Court opines that will be an artificial reading
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4180-DB WA No. 100753 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100760 of 2025 HC-KAR defeating the stated intent. Therefore, this Court must confirm the outcome in the writ and dismiss the writ appeals.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KMS*/ CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17