V SUBBA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, the petitioners who were Councillors of the concerned Town Municipal Council have assailed the legality and validity of the exclusion of their Town Municipal Councils from the purview of the Notification dated 30-7-1988 issued by the respondent State of Karnataka in purported exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (the Act for short) and the orders passed under Sub-section 1 of Section 315 of the Act appointing Administrators to the Town Municipal Councils in question on the same day which are produced as annexures to the petitions. The Town Municipal Council involved in W.P. 11357/1988 is Chintamani. In the other petitions Hassan, Koppal and Ranebennur Town Municipal Councils are the affected Municipalities.

(2.) The brief facts which are not in dispute are as follows: The terms of Office of the Municipal Councils in all these cases expired sometime at the beginning of the latter half of the year 1987. But, term of Office of the Municipal Councillors was extended upto 31-12-1987. Thereafter, by further notifications the term of Office was extended upto 30-6-1988 in the first instance and thereafter upto 31-7-1988. Just before the expiry of 31-7-1988 the orders appointing Administrators in respect of the Municipalities in question have been passed without extending the term of Office of the Councillors. The prayer in all the Writ Petitions is to quash the orders appointing the Administrator to these Municipalities as well as for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to include the names of these Municipalities in the list appended to the notification dated 30-7-1988 issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Act extending the term of Office or the Municipal Councillors of several Municipal Councils in the State of Karnataka upto 31-12-1988. There are some infirmities in the prayer in some of the petitions to which this Court need not pay serious attention having regard to the public interest raised in these Writ Petitions.

(3.) In W.P. 11357/1988 Rule was issued on 4-8-1988 and emergent notices were made returnable in 7 days. As the respondents had not entered appearance learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice. Subsequently, learned Advocate General appeared in the case and has filed statement of objections. That particular petition was heard on 1-9-1988 and as directed by this Court an additional statement of objection was filed giving further particulars called for by the Court.