H ABDUL RAHIM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the Municipal Councillor of Hassan City Municipal Council. The 2nd petitioner is also the Municipal Councillor of the very same Council and both of them were elected as Municipal Councillors in the general elections held to the City Municipal Council, Hassan, during the month of July, 1983. Their term of office commenced on 10-8-1987 and in terms of Section 18 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short the Act), the term of the Councillors elected at a general election was for a period of four years. However, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act provides that the Government may by notification for reasons to be specified therein could extend either prospectively or retrospectively the term of office of such Councillors by such period not exceeding 24 months. It is not in dispute that the term of office of the petitioners as also of the other Councillors expired on 10-8-1987. But the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 18 of the Act had extended their term upto 31-12-1987. Respondents 3 and 4 were elected as President and Vice-President of the aforesaid Municipal Council on 8-9-1985 and their term of office was for a period of two years as could be seen from Annexure-B filed in the Writ Petition which is a Government Order dated 12-3-1983. By that Government Order in pursuance of the proviso to sub-section (11) of Section 42 of the Act, the term of office of the President and Vice-President of the Hassan City Municipal Council was limited to two years and elections to the said office should have been held at the end of two years. So in terms of this Government Order which applied to respondents 3 and 4, their term of office came to an end as noticed earlier on 7-9-1987 and there should have been a fresh election to the elective posts of President and Vice-President after their term came to an end. However, the State Government under Annexure-C dated 22-8- 1987 issued a Notification in exercise of the power under sub- section (12) of Section 42 of the Act appointing respondents 3 and 4 as President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council till 31-12-1987. It is this notification of the Government that is challenged by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government having exercised the power pursuant to the proviso to Section 42(11) of the Act it acted without jurisdiction by having recourse to the provisions of Section 42(12) of the Act in making the impugned notification appointing respondents 3 and 4 as President and Vice-President respectively upto 31-12-1987. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is under the scheme of the Act and due regard being had to the provisions of Section 42(11) and (12) of the Act, both the offices of the President and Vice-President are elective offices and unless the Government brought the case within the scope of other provisions which provided for the appointment of President and Vice-President it had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification appointing these persons as President and Vice-President. According to him as soon as the term of office of the President and Vice-President expired, the Municipal Councillors should have elected a President and Vice-President from amongst themselves. But it was contended by the learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and also by the learned Government Advocate that the provisions of Section 42(12) of the Act completely answer the challenge made by the petitioners and therefore, notwithstanding the initial appointment of respondents-3 and 4 in terms of the proviso to Section 42(11) of the Act, the impugned notification is valid and has to be given full effect.