Cyriac Joseph, C. , J.—The petitioner is a Councillor of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike who was elected from Ward No. 50, Visveswarapuram, Bangalore. He has filed this Writ Petition questioning the validity of Annexure-A notification dated 2-11-2006 issued by the Government of Karnataka. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a declaration that Annexure-A notification is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. He has also prayed for an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A notification.

2. The impugned notification has been issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers conferred upon by Sections 3 and 4(1)(a) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short the Act). As per the notification, it was announced that it is proposed to specify such area, the limits of which are specified in Schedule-B to the notification to be a larger urban area of Bangalore and further to specify the area indicated in Schedule-A to be incorporated in the larger urban area of Bangalore City Corporation to be called hereafter Bruhat Bangalore Maha-nagara Palike. The notification was published in the Official Gazette for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby giving notice that the notification will be taken into consideration after 30 days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. All the persons who entertain any objections and suggestions to the said proposal were required to submit the same with reasons therefor in writing to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, within the stipulated period. Annexure-A notification was published in the Official Gazette on 2-11-2006.

3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned notification was issued in violation of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act. Section 4(1) and (2) are extracted hereunder :

4. Inclusion and exclusion of areas in, or from the larger urban area :

(1) The Governor may having regard to the provisions of Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), by notification-

(a) include within the limits of the larger urban area, any local area adjacent thereto; or

(b) exclude from the limits of the larger urban area, any local area comprised therein; and every such notification shall define the limits of the local area to which it relates.

(2) No such notification shall be issued unless a draft thereof is-

(a) published in the Official Gazette for the information of all persons likely to be, affected thereby inviting objections and suggestions within one month from the date of publication; and

(b) referred to the Corporation for expressing its views thereon within the period specified in Clause (a).

It is clear from Section 4(2)(b) that no such notification as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 4 shall be issued unless a draft thereof is referred to the Corporation for expressing its views thereon within the period specified in Clause 2(a), i.e., within one month. Obviously, Annexure-A is the draft notification envisaged under Section 4(2). The grievance of the petitioner is that till the writ petition was filed, the draft notification was not referred to the Corporation for expressing its views thereon. The writ petition was filed on 13-11-2006. When the writ petition came up for admission on 17-11-2006, the learned Government Advocate was given time to verify whether the proposal in Annexure-A had been referred to the Corporation under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act and the case stood adjourned to 20-11-2006. On 20-11-2006, learned Government Advocate submitted that the proposal in Annexure-A was referred to the Corporation under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act as per a Government letter dated 3-11-2006 addressed to the Commissioner of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and that its receipt was acknowledged by the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 6-11-2006. Since the learned counsel f