R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA …

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer Made by the petitioner is to quash the notice dated 15.9.2006 issued by the Tahsildar/the prescribed Election Officer for elections to the post of Adhyaksha. By the impugned notice, the Election Officer has issued calendar of events for conducting elections to the post of Adhyaksha of the Town Municipal Council, Kadur. A declaration is also sought by the petitioner that the provisions contained in Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 enabling the Election Officer to fill up the post of President and Vicepresident as and when it becomes vacant as unreasonable and opposed to the object and intendment of the Act.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the Councilors elected, to the Kadur Municipality. Their grievance is that for the post of President, elections are held frequently and different Presidents are elected during the last thirty months at the whims and fancies of the Councilors which is not in the interest of the efficient administration of the affairs of the Municipality. The first President was elected on 1.7.2004. He submitted his resignation; whereupon, elections were held to elect another President on 16.4.2005. Likewise, the succeeding Presidents have after continuing in the post for few months, gone on resigning resulting in new elections being held on 20.8.2005, 25.8.2005 and 6.6.2006. The present election is scheduled on 25.9.2006, as a result of the resignation of the incumbent President on 30.8.2006.

(3.) A perusal of the provision as extracted above would disclose that the councilors are entitled to elect at the first meeting of the Municipal Council after the general elections and at subsequent meetings held immediately before the expiry of the term of office of the President and Vice-President, one member each from amongst the elected Councilors for the post of President and Vice-president. The provision also stipulates that so often as there is a casual vacancy for the post of President or Vice-president, the councilors shall choose another member from amongst the elected councilors to be the President or the Vice-President as the case may be. The Legislative intent as expressed in Sub-clause 2 clearly suggests that as and when a casual vacancy arises for the post of President, or Vice-president, the Councilors are enjoined with a duty to elect a member for the post of President or Vice-president. In the absence of any ambiguity in understanding the Legislative intent, it is not open for this Court to read down this provision or attribute unreasonableness to the provision by taking into account the practice followed in a given Municipal Council where the councilors have resorted to electing persons to the post of President too often by way of some understanding between them resulting in one person vacating the post paving way for the other at regular intervals. This action of the Councilors cannot be taken as a ground for attacking the virus of the provision. It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that as long as the provision enacted by the Legislature is clear and unambigious, the same has to be given its full meaning regardless of whether the consequences sometimes are not totally desirable.