M B SRIKANTHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioners are the Municipal Councillors of City Municipal Council, Mandya. They have challenged the appointment of respondent-3 as President of the said City Municipal Council under Government Notification dated 1-9-1987 produced as Annexure-B in the writ petition. The said notification was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 42(12) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). By that notification, the State Government appointed respondent-3 as the President to perform the duties of the President during the extended period upto 31-12-1987. The necessity for this notification arose because of the fact that earlier, the State Government had extended the term of Municipal Councillors of City Municipal Council, Mandya upto 31-12-1987 by a notification dated 6-7-1987.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that both the notifications of the State Government viz., Annexures-A and B are without jurisdiction since after the expiry of the term of the Councillors who had been elected earlier as Councillors of the Mandya Municipality, the State Government should have ordered fresh elections to the posts of Municipal Councillors without granting an extension to the term of the Municipal Councillors upto 31-12- 1987. This extension, it is alleged has thwarted the process of democratic functioning of the Municipal Council in question. The petitioners have alleged that the reasons given by the State Government for extending the term of Municipal Councillors are wholly extraneous to the requirement of the relevant provision of the Act and that was done only with a view to ensure that the existing Municipal Councillors and the President duly elected by them earlier could hold on to their offices till the expiry of 31-12-1987.