VISHWANTAHA AKHANDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated 16th Nov. 1979 bearing No. HUD 214 TML 79. issued by the first respondent in exercise of the powers under 8.315(1) of of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petitioners 1 and 2 were the Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively, of the erstwhile Town Panchayat Committee, Jewargi. Petitioner-3 and respondents 3 to 12 were the members of the said Town Panchayat Committee. In view of the increase in the population of the town of Jewargi, the first respondent, in exercise of the powers under S. 3 of the Act, converted the Town Panchayat Committee, Jewargi into the Town Municipal Council by a notification dated 31-10-1974 bearing No. HMA 95 TML 72 published in the Official Gazette dated 2-11-1974 (Ex. A). Thus, the Town Panchayat Committee, Jewargi, became the Town Municipal Council by reason of the aforesaid notification. The Chairman and the Vice- Chairman and the members of the Town Panchayat Committee, Jewargi by virtye of the provisions contained in S. 357(b) of 1 he Act, became the President, the Vice- president and Councillors respectively of the Town Municipal Council. Subsequently, by the impugned notification dated 16th November 1979 (Ex. C) the State Government in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of S 315 of the Act has appointed the Tahsildar of the taluk as the Administrator of the Town Municipal Council, Jewargi, on the ground that the election to the said Municipal Council could not be held within one year from the date of the constitution of the interim Municipal Council.

(3.) Of course, certain allegations of mala fides have been made in the writ petition against the then Ministers-Sri Mallikarjun Kharge and Sri Devendrappa Ghalappa, but during the course of argument, Sri Ron, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, withdrew all the allegations of mala fides, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the same.