[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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