The Administrator can be appointed under Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act when elections are not held before the end of the Municipal Council's five-year term, without violating Article 243(U) of the Constitution.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

Whether the administrator can be appointed under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act, 1964’) in case the election to the Municipal Council is not held before the expiry of the tenure of the elected Municipal Council, is the question that needs to be resolved.

2. It is admitted that in all the petitions, the 5 years’ term of the Municipal Council has come to an end.

3. The petitioners contend that the State has no power either under the Act, 1964 or under the Constitution of India to appoint the Administrator in a situation where the election is not held to the Municipal Council even after expiry of its five years’ tenure.

4. Learned senior counsel Sri Jaykumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioners raised the following contentions:-

(a) Under Article 243(U) of Constitution of India there is a mandate to hold elections within 5 years from the date of first meeting.

(b) There is no provision under the Constitution of India to appoint an Administrator in case election is not held before completion of five years’ tenure.

(c) Sections 42 or 315 of Act, 1964 do not enable the State to appoint the Administrator in case elections are not held to the council before completion of the tenure.

(d) The provisions of Article 243(U) should be read to hold that the tenure of the councillors will come to an end only after the election is held to the Municipal Council.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Gangadhar J.M. would contend as under:-

(a) The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. Allauddin and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others , W.P. No.106387/2025 & Connected matters has held that the time during which the Administrator was holding the office cannot be excluded to reckon the tenure of the elected body.

(b) The petitioners having not questioned the earlier order appointing the Administrator cannot seek to exclude the period during which the administrator was appointed.

(c) The petitioners who are elected for 5 years do not have any subsisting right to continue the office beyond 5 years.

(d) Under Section 315 read with Section 389 of the Act, 1964 the State has the power to appoint the Administrator in case the elections are not held before completion of the tenure.

(e) The Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Lakappa Ningannavar vs. The State of Karnataka , WA NO.100111/2021 & Connected matters has held that the power is vested with the Government to appoint the Administrator after expiry of 5 years.

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in reply would contend that Section 389 of the Act, 1964 has no application to the fact situation obtaining in these petitions.

7. In addition, learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishansing Tomar vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others , (2006) 8 SCC 352 to contend that the election has to be held before expiry of the term and for any reason, if it is not held, then the tenure of the council should be interpreted to mean that, it would be from first meeting of the municipal council to the next election. In addition, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another ,