H L SURYAPRABHU Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are President and Vice-President of the City Municipal Council, Hassan, have presented these two petitions questioning the calendar of events issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer on 20th August 1985 proposing to hold election to the Office of the President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council on 6-9-1985.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The term of the Municipal council now in office commenced on 31st July, 1983. The President and VicePresident were elected at an election held on 8-9-1983. One Mr. H. B. Nagaraj was elected as the President and the second petitioner was elected as the Vice-president in the said election. As H. B. Nagaraj died, a fresh election was held for the office of the President and the first petitioner was elected as the President on 8-8-1984. The Municipal Council passed a resolution on 22nd September 1983 by which it decided that the term of office of the President and Vice-President be limited to two years. Acting on the basis of the said resolution, the State Government made an order on 12th March 1984 in terms of proviso to sub-section (11) of Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. The relevant portion of the order reads :

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the resolution passed by the Municipal Council limiting the term of office of President and Vice-President to two years after their election and the direction issued by the State Government on the basis of such resolution long after the election of the President and the Vice President, would not bind the petitioners and therefore their term of office in terms of the proviso to Section 42(11) of the Act was co-extensive with that of the term o.f office of the Councillors and therefore the Calendar of Events was invalid. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrappa v. Tahsildar, Jamkhandi [1971(1) Mys.L.J. p. 12]. In the said decision sub-section (11) of Section 42 of the Act came up for interpretation. The said provision as it stood then read thus :