- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 15015 OF 2023 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4409 OF 2023 (LB-RES) IN W.P. No. 15015/2023 BETWEEN: 1. NOLAMBA VEERASHAIVA SANGA (R) SUB COMMITTEE ARASIKERE AT TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PIN - 573 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI SHIVAKUMAR P S/O S PARASHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS REGISTERED UNDER MYSORE REGISTRATION C.S. ACT 1958. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE - 570 001 Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 2. THE CITY MUNICIPALITY ARASIKERE AT TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103 BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER 3. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 570 001. SRI GIRISH S. S/O D. CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PRESIDENT CITY MUNICIPALITY, ARASIKERE R/O MAGNA NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR ARASIKERE TOWN/TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG FOR SRI YOGANNA K.P., AGA FOR R1 & R3; SMT. VIDYA S. ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 10/02/2023 IN NO.ELECTION:CR:42/2021-22 PASSED BY THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-K IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AFFECTING THE RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST AND POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE B PROPERTY AND ETC. IN W.P. NO. 4409/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GIRISH S S/O D CHANDRAIAH, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O MAGNA NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR, ARASIKERE TOWN, ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103 HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE -570 001. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPALITY ARASIKERE -573 103, HASSAN DISTRICT, BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. 3. SHRI SHIVAKUMAR P SECRETARY, NOLAMBA VEERASHIAVA SANGHA (R), SUB COMMITTEE ARASIKERE -573 103, HASSAN DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN -570 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG FOR SRI YOGANNA K.P., AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. VIDYA S. ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/02/2023 IN NO. ELECTION:CR:42/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE R-1 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER W.P.No.4409/2023 has been filed by the petitioner who is the Councillor / President of the Town Municipal Council, Arasikere, calling in question the validity of the order dated 10.02.2023 bearing No.ELECTION:CR:42/ 2021-2022 at Annexure-M whereby, the petitioner has been disqualified from his Membership in terms of Section 41 (1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short) as well as fixing liability in terms of Section 308 of the Act. W.P.No.15015/2023 has been filed by the Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha®, calling in question the validity of the order dated 10.02.2023 by the Regional Commissioner. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 The challenge in the said writ petition is limited to the adverse observations/findings made in the impugned order effecting the rights of the petitioner in respect of the property in question. 2. Since both the writ petitions are filed challenging the same impugned order with identical factual matrix though with distinct reliefs, in order to avoid any contradiction, both the matters are taken up together and are disposed off by this common order. 3. The brief facts are narrated as made out in W.P.No.4409/2023. An extent of 20.9 x 26.70 sq. mtrs. of land is stated to be in possession of the respondent No.2 - City Municipality, Arasikere, till the completion of Arasikere Town drinking water project in terms of a resolution which further denotes that subsequent to completion of such project, the question of giving it for educational development activities could be considered by fixing upset price. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 4. It is stated that the office bearers/ members of Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha had made an application to hand over the land to the respondent No.3 ('Respondent No.3 - Sangha' for short) after completion of the project work in terms of the resolution. It is in such context that on 07.02.2022, large number of members of respondent No.3 - Sangha had gathered near the property demanding the respondent No.2 - City Municipality to remove the material stored in the pump house and seeking for handing over of that portion of the land to the respondent No.3 - Sangha. Eventually, it is stated that the petitioner along with other councilors had directed the employees of the Council viz., Watermen to shift the material from the pump-house and thereafter it is alleged that the pump- house was demolished. 5. It is stated that thereafter, the Commissioner of the City-Municipality, Arsikere Nagarasabhe had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E, to the effect that during the period he was on leave from - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 05.02.2022 to 07.02.2022, the petitioner / President had directed removal of material belonging to the Town Municipality without bringing such matter to his notice. Further, as the pump-house was demolished in an illegal manner subsequent to the removal of materials, the Municipal Commissioner had sought taking of necessary action against the petitioner/ President in light of his alleged facilitatory role. 6. The Municipal Commissioner had asserted that the land in which the pump-house was put up belonged to the City Municipality. It is asserted that the Petitioner /President of the Town Municipality ought to have discussed the matter with the Municipal Commissioner and ought to have placed the issue before the Municipal Council and without resorting to such action and without consulting the Commissioner or the officials, had unilaterally issued directions to the staff for removal of the material from the structure indirectly supporting the action of removal of the pump-house and thereby causing loss to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 the Municipality. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner was called upon to initiate necessary action. 7. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of the Annexure-F had addressed a communication to the Director, Municipal Administration, to take necessary action in terms of Section 308 and 309 of the Act. Eventually the office of the Regional Commissioner had issued a show-cause notice on 18.04.2022 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner in terms of section 42(10) of the Act, in light of misconduct of the petitioner in performing of his duties and negligence in vacating the pump-house belonging to the Town Municipality without obtaining permission from the Municipal Council and the relevant authority. 8. Detailed reply was made out by the petitioner / President at Annexure-H dated 27.04.2022, specifically asserting that the land in which the pump-house was situated was in possession of the respondent No.3-Sangha - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 and with the permission of the Sangha, the material belonging to the Municipality was stored in the said pump- house. It was specifically asserted that there were no records to indicate how the land devolved on the Municipal Authority. Thus, it was specifically asserted that allegations made against him were false. 9. Proceedings were initiated by the Regional Commissioner which culminated in the order at Annexure- M, whereby, after an enquiry, it was found that the petitioner / President was guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duties and incurred disqualification in terms of Section 42(10) of the Act and stood disqualified from the membership of the Municipality in terms of section 41(1) of the Act. 10. It was further found that the petitioner / President was personally liable for the loss caused to the Municipality and such loss could be recovered from him in terms of section 308 of the Act. Such order was preceded by an enquiry by the Regional Commissioner. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 11. The detailed order of the Regional Commissioner dated 10.02.2023 at Annexure-M had recorded the following findings: (i) The petitioner by directing the water supply personnel to remove material from the disputed structure had indirectly facilitated demolishing of the structure. (ii) Prior to removal of such material, no inventory was prepared. That the President/ petitioner of the Municipality had unilaterally decided for such removal of material without bringing it to the notice of the concerned officers and without taking permission from the Government. (iii) The petitioner / President had acted in a manner inconsistent with the responsible position that he occupied and had taken a stand contrary to that of the Municipality in his written reply to the show-cause notice. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 (iv) That instead of protecting the property of the Municipality during the period when the Municipal Commissioner was on leave, the petitioner / President had directed the removal of material belonging to the Municipality eventually leading to the demolishing of the pump-house which could be described as misuse of power which stood proved causing loss of about Ten lakhs to the Municipality. 12. The said order of the Regional Commissioner has been challenged on various grounds by the petitioner / President before this Court in W.P.No.4409/2023. W.P.No.15015/2023 has been filled by Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha challenging only insofar as the observations/findings affecting the rights, title and interest in respect of the land in which the pump-house was situated. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 13. The contentions raised by the petitioners as well as the respondents would be referred to while analyzing the respective points raised by the parties. 14. In light of the contentions raised, following points arise for consideration: (I) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER IS VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE? (II) WHETHER THE FINDING BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER THAT THE PETITIONER HAD COMMITTED MISCONDUCT AND WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES, THEREBY MAKING OUT A GROUND FOR HIS DISQUALIFICATION IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 42 (10) AND 41 (2) OF THE ACT, REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED? (III) WHETHER THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN HOLDING THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS CAUSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 308 OF THE ACT ? - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 ANALYSIS :- (I) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER IS VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE? 15. The contentions raised with respect to the above point for consideration are dealt with as below: (i) That the order passed by the Regional Commissioner was in violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) It was contended that the order of disqualification passed was only on the basis of written pleadings and there was no opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine the witnesses and accordingly, the enquiry held had not adhered to the principles of natural justice and on this ground the impugned proceedings was liable to be set aside. (iii) Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.20304/2018 in - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 the case of N. Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka and Others. Other authorities were also relied upon in support of such contention including the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravi Yeshwanth Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and other1. 16. At the outset it is necessary to notice the relevant statutory provision relating to the contention raised above i.e., proviso to section 42(10) of the Act which reads as follows: Provided that no such order shall be made except after the president or the Vice- President has been given an opportunity for submitting explanations. 17. The statutory provision provides for an opportunity of submitting explanation. Though no rules are framed regarding the mode of enquiry, it is a settled position that principles of natural justice are required to be 1 (2012) 4 SCC 407 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 followed as maybe necessary even where the statutory provision is silent. 18. However, the provision of principles of natural justice being read into the disqualification proceedings beyond that expressly provided under the statute is always contextual. In the present case the allegation made out against the petitioner / President is that he had committed a misconduct in the discharge of his duty by directing removal of material belonging to the Municipality from the disputed structure which eventually came to be demolished without authorization of the council or consultation with the Municipal Commissioner and staff. It was found that the petitioner / President had taken a stand inconsistent with the title of the Municipality and had done acts favouring the respondent No.3-Sangha and facilitated the demolishing of the structure (pump-house). 19. In the reply dated 27.04.2022 to the show-cause notice, the petitioner / President had specifically averred - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 that he had instructed the officials of the water supply department to protect the property of the Municipality. 20. In the statement of objections dated 04.11.2022 filed by the petitioner / President in the course of enquiry, the petitioner has stated that he visited the spot where people had gathered and came back. It is asserted that he had learnt subsequently that the material belonging to the Municipality had been removed from the disputed structure after which the structure was demolished. 21. It is the specific stand of the petitioner in the present writ petition (W.P.No.4409/2023), at para 8 as follows – “…that in order to protect the materials of the Municipal Council, he had directed the assistant waterman to remove the material / belongings of the municipal council and also further stated that, there is no document in the municipal council to show that, the property in question belongs to the second respondent and also has brought to the notice of the first respondent with - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 regard to the decision taken by the council vide Annexure B…..” (emphasis supplied) 22. A reading of reply to the show-cause notice, statement of objections to the main petition and the averment in the writ petition reproduced above together in their entirety would indicate and what could be inferred is the stand of the petitioner that the shifting of the material was in accordance with his direction to the waterman to protect the material of the Municipal Authority. 23. It is the specific assertion at the time of argument that to safe guard the property of the Municipal Authority, the same was shifted outside the disputed structure by the employees of the water supply department is accordance with his direction to safeguard the material. 24. If that were to be so, it was the further explanation of the petitioner / President that shifting of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 material was inevitable, that ought to have been demonstrated. 25. The petitioner has not specifically made any request for further enquiry by way of subjecting the watermen and Municipal Commissioner to cross- examination. In light of his stand regarding shifting of material, it cannot be stated that the absence of evidence and cross examination of the watermen or Municipal Commissioner has caused prejudice. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of this case, the non-subjecting the watermen or Municipal Commissioner to cross-examination cannot be said to have vitiated the enquiry. 26. The reading into of principles of natural justice beyond what is provided for by the statutory provision is contextual and not a universal rule. Prejudice ought to have been demonstrated by necessary pleading in order to consider whether the present enquiry stood vitiated.2 2 State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others ­ [(2021) 19 SCC 706] The Apex Court comprising of bench of 3 judges has held that prejudice needs to be shown which caused violation of principle of natural justice. The observations made are as follows: - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 Accordingly, it cannot be stated that the order of the Regional Commissioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 27. As regards the reliance of the petitioner in the case of N.Rama Murthy (supra), the said order is not applicable to the present factual matrix. No doubt, this court has held that in an inquiry in disqualification proceedings the principles of natural justice has to be strictly followed and read into the process. The context in which the observations were made was where a request for adjournment on justifiable causes was refused. The pleadings in the present writ petition is clearly to the effect that the petitioner had asked the waterman to remove the material. Such stand is contended to be inevitable in the peculiar factual matrix. For such explanation it was the duty of the petitioner to have "42.5. The “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non­observance of natural justice." - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 sought for an opportunity to place such stand and the burden to do so rested on the petitioner. When no such request was made, there was no warrant for the authority to have done anything further. Accordingly, the law laid down in N.Rama Murthy (supra) cannot be extended to the present factual matrix. (II) WHETHER THE FINDING BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER THAT THE PETITIONER HAD COMMITTED MISCONDUCT AND WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES, THEREBY MAKING OUT A GROUND FOR HIS DISQUALIFICATION IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 42 (10) AND 41 (2) OF THE ACT, REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED? 28. The relevant statutory provision in relation to disqualification that has been invoked are Section 42 (10) and Section 41 (2) of the Act. Section 42 (10) reads as follows: "Every President and Vice-President shall, be removable from his office as such President or Vice-President by the Government for misconduct in the discharge of his duties or for neglect of or incapacity to perform his duties or if he is unable to pay dues he - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 owes to the Municipal Council or has suffered an order for commitment to civil prison for non-payment of any decretal debt , and a President and Vice-President so removed who does not cease to be a councillor under sub-section (2) of section 41, shall not be eligible for re-election as president or vice-president during the remainder of his term of office of councillor specified in section 18. Section 41 (2) reads as follow: "(2) When under sub-section (10) of section 42 any person is removed from the office of president or vice-president for misconduct in the discharge of his duties, he shall, from the date of such removal cease to be a councillor and shall be deemed to have been removed from the office of councillor under sub-section (1)." 29. In order to consider as to whether the President has incurred disqualification by acts of misconduct in "discharge of his duties or for neglect", it is necessary to note the duties of the President and scope of his power. From the facts made out, it is clear that the petitioner / President was present on the date of the incident and had visited the site. Admittedly, the petitioner / President had also directed the staff of the Water Supply Department to protect the property of the Municipality. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had learnt that material was - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 shifted out of the pump house and subsequently the pump house was demolished. 30. In terms of the statutory scheme as per Section 81 of the Act, the ownership of the property is vested with the Municipal Council. The power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which belongs to the Municipality are vested with the Municipal Council subject to orders of the Government. 31. The President of the Municipality referred to as the President of Municipal Council has been conferred with emergency powers under Section 43 (2) of the Act, which reads as follows: "The President of a municipal council may, in cases of emergency direct the execution or stoppage of any work or the doing of any act which requires the sanction of the municipal council, and the immediate execution or doing of which is, in his opinion, necessary for the service or safety of the public, and may direct that the expenses of executing such work or doing such act shall be paid from the municipal fund: Provided that— (a) he shall not act under this section in contravention of any order of the municipal council prohibiting the execution of any particular work or the doing of any particular act, and - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 (b) he shall report forthwith the action taken under this section and the reason therefor to the standing committee at its next meeting." 32. It is thus clear that the emergency powers of the President are subject to the President reporting forthwith the action taken and reason therefor to the Standing Committee at its next meeting. 33. There is no material placed to demonstrate use of emergency power by the President in terms of Section 43(2) of the Act. 34. The material on record would reveal that it is only the Municipal Commissioner who has lodged a police complaint and his assertion that he was not informed remains unrebutted. 35. Coming to the impugned order passed by the Regional Commissioner, there is a specific finding recorded that the petitioner / President has indirectly facilitated the demolition of pump house by directing removal of the materials in the pump house. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 36. The order also specifically observes that the stand of the petitioner / President that the property in which the pump house was situated in land that does not belong to the Municipality but the Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha is inconsistent with the dignity of the office of the President. 37. It is to be seen that the President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council. If that were to be so, he could not have allowed the movables of the Municipality to be shifted outside the pump house. It is admitted that the material was shifted out of the pump house upon his direction as observed supra at Paragraph No.22. Subsequently, it is also admitted by him that the pump house was demolished. 38. It is apparent from the records and the statement of the Municipal Commissioner that no police compliant was filed by him, nor any permission of the Municipal Council was obtained. If it was emergency power that was exercised, the procedure under the Proviso (b) to Section - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 43 (2) of the Act has not been followed. Accordingly, the charge made out from the show-cause has been found to be proved in terms of the enquiry and no ground is made out for interference. 39. The specific assertion by the petitioner/ President that there are no records to show that the ownership of the disputed land in which the pump house was situated was vested with the Municipality has the effect of taking a stand contrary to the assertion of the Municipality. The assertion of the Municipality flows from the stand taken by the Municipal Commissioner in his complaint to the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E. The resolution dated 27.03.1995 No.15/6 of the Municipal Council would unequivocally indicate that the possession of the disputed land would continue with the Municipality till the water project was concluded and thereafter, alienation of the property for public educational purposes was to be considered by fixation of upset price. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 40. Admittedly, no process of alienation in terms of the resolution dated 27.03.1995 No.15/6 has been made and accordingly, the assertion that the property belongs to the respondent no.3-Sangha and action taken in relation to the shifting of material without the authorisation of the Council is a misconduct in terms of Section 42 (10) of the Act. The petitioner has not only been negligent in safeguarding the property but the action could be described as misconduct in discharge of his duties. Apart from the enumerated duties, the property of the Municipality is held in trust by the Municipal Council and it is the duty of the President to safeguard it being cognizant that he also required to function as a Trustee of a Constructive Trust as regards the property of the Authority. Admittedly, he has failed to prevent the demolition of the pump house by being lax in preventing the removal of material from the pump house. 41. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended that the word - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 "misconduct" must be strictly interpreted relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yeshwant Bhoir (supra), in the present case, the lapse of the petitioner is not merely an oversight but clear breach of duty to safeguard the Municipal property by permitting the movable property to be removed from the pump house without the authorisation by the Municipal Council. In fact, it must be noted that the Apex Court has at Para 13 stated that "an action which is detrimental to the prestige of the Institution may also amount to misconduct" Accordingly, the argument that present action cannot be termed to be misconduct cannot be accepted. 42. The order of the Regional Commissioner is detailed insofar as the aspect of his misconduct is concerned. The findings recorded clearly enumerate the misconduct based on the appreciation of material on record. Such findings do not call for any interference and from the discussion made above, it would only indicate the necessity of upholding such finding. Once the misconduct - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 is held to be proved and the President is removed in terms of Section 42 (10) of the Act, he also ceases to be a Councilor and is deemed to have been removed from the office of the Council in terms of Section 41 (2) and (1) of the Act. (III) WHETHER THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN HOLDING THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS CAUSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 308 OF THE ACT ? 43. Section 308 (1) and (2) of the Act reads as hereunder: "308. Liability of councillors for loss, waste or misapplication.— (1) Every councillor of a town municipal council shall be personally liable for the loss, waste, or misapplication of any money or other property of the municipal council to which he has been a party, or which has been caused or facilitated by his misconduct or gross neglect of his duty as a councillor. (2) If, after giving the councillor or councillors concerned sufficient opportunity for showing cause to the contrary the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property of the municipal council is a direct consequence of misconduct or gross neglect on his or their part, the Deputy Commissioner shall by order in writing direct such councillor or councillors to pay to the municipal council before a fixed date, the amount - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 required to reimburse it for such loss, waste or misapplication." 44. The finding regarding loss of the property of the Municipal Council is to be made by the Deputy Commissioner. The present finding is by the Regional Commissioner who has no jurisdiction to record such finding in order to fasten personal liability. Accordingly, such part of the order that makes that petitioner personally liable is set aside. Liberty is however reserved to the Authority to proceed as per law as regards such aspect. In Re: W.P.No.15015/2023 45. W.P.No.15015/2023, having a limited scope only insofar as observations/findings made in the impugned order relating to title and possession, it could be clarified that any observations made in the course of the proceedings by the Regional Commissioner are limited to the proceedings under Sections 42 (10) and 41 of the Act and cannot be construed to be a conclusive finding as - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:13845 WP No. 15015 of 2023 C/W WP No. 4409 of 2023 regards title, possession, interest of the Municipality as the subject matter of enquiry in the order of the Regional Commissioner is limited to disqualification proceedings. All other observations relating to aspect of property rights are only incidental and would not bind the authorities or courts dealing with such property rights as the main issue. 46. In light of the above, both the writ petitions stand disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP/NP