- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101414 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. USHA MAHESH DASAR, W/O. MAHESH DASAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: R/A SIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR HUGAR PLOT, GADAG-582101. 2. SRI. ANIL M. ABBIGERE, S/O. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: R/A. 1728/5, OLD SARAF BAZAAR, GADAG-562101. 3. SRI. GULAPPA S. MUSHIGERI, S/O. HANAMANTHAPPA MUSHIGIRI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: R/A. NO.250/9, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, BETAGERI, GADAG-582101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, SRI. SWAMINI G.M. AND SRI. B.R. SRIVATSA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, GADAG-582101. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590002. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GADAG-BETAGERI, STATION ROAD, GANDHI CIRCLE, GADAG-582102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY AG, SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG ALONG WITH SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. HARSHA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 BEARING NO. PRA AA BE:K.M.C/52/2024-25/E.NO.250815 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-REGIONAL COMMISSIONER (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 13.02.2025 bearing no. PRA AA BE:K.M.C/52/2024-25/E.NO.250815 passed by the 3rd Respondent-Regional Commissioner (produced as Annexure-A); and /or, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 ii. Issue such other Writ, Orders or directions as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. A notice having been issued under Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Act of 1964’, for short) to the petitioners, who are the Councillors of the Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, came to be served on 06.02.2025. The petitioners appeared before the Regional Commissioner, to whom the powers have been delegated on 13.02.2025 at 11.00 a.m. and sought for three weeks' time to submit their explanations and documents. Without considering the same, the Regional Commissioner, on 13.02.2025, passed an order disqualifying the petitioners. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 4. Sri.Sandeep Patil learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that: 4.1. The proviso to Subsection(1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964 has been violated, the petitioners have not been given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the notice. 4.2. In terms of Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964, the recommendation in the present matter has been made by the Municipal Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, who thereafter forwarded it to the Regional Commissioner for necessary action. The submission in this regard is that, the recommendation has to be made by the Municipal Council and not by any officer. 4.3. Lastly, he submits that, in a hurry the election is proposed to be held on 28.02.2025 after - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 having disqualified the petitioners and as such, he submits that the entire action on the part of the government is malafide which is required t be dealt with by this Hon’ble Court, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others1, more particularly para 31 and 34 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office-bearer can be removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry. 34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement 1 (2012) 4 SCC 407 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 of natural justice and the decision must show that the authority has applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office-bearer sought to be removed. 5. The learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents No.1, 2, and 3 submits that; 5.1. Firstly, an administrator has been appointed to the Municipal Council vide order dated 29.07.2024 under Section 315 of the Act of 1964 and as such, the administrator would substitute the Council, and the recommendation made by the administrator to the Regional Commissioner is a recommendation made by the Council. The said order of appointment of the administrator made wayback on 29.07.2024 not having been challenged and the administrator discharging his duties as such, no fault can be found with the recommendation made by the administrator to the Regional Commissioner - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 for initiation of proceedings under Section 41 of the Act of 1964. 5.2. Insofar as the violation of the first proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964, his submission is that, this proviso only provides for an opportunity to be afforded submitting an explanation and not for hearing. In the notice issued by the Regional Commissioner, seven days' time had been provided to the petitioners to reply and submit their explanation. If at all their explanation had been submitted, the Regional Commissioner would have considered it. Instead of doing so, the petitioners sought for three weeks' time without indicating what documents the petitioners wanted to submit. 5.3. The Regional Commissioner being of the opinion that all the necessary documents were already available on record, more so on - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 account of a First Information Report (FIR) having been filed as regards the allegations made against the petitioners, an investigation having been completed, and a charge sheet having been laid, the allegations being that the petitioners had dealt with the properties of the Municipal Council to the detriment of the Municipal Council and contrary to the judgments passed by the Civil Court, directing eviction of 54 tenants, confirmed by the First Appellate Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim made by 54 persons before the Coordinate Bench of the this Court in Writ Petition No.112012/2019 and connected matters, having already been rejected, those 54 persons having been directed to handover vacant possession of the property belonging to the Council, the petitioners have fabricated a resolution of the Council - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 with forged signatures of the Municipal Commissioner, as if the council had agreed for extension of lease period for a further 5 years. 5.4. 5.4. These documents being on record, the Regional Commissioner has gone ahead with passing the order, being of the opinion that it was only an attempt made by the petitioners for protracting the proceedings and nothing else. 5.5. As such, he submits that the order passed by the Regional Commissioner is perfectly valid and no fault can be found with it. 6. Sri.Harsh Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 – Municipal Council, represented by the Commissioner, reiterates the arguments of the learned Advocate General and would further submit that: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 6.1. Even in the letters seeking an extension of time, the petitioners have not indicated what documents they wish to produce. Except to state that the applications have been made, no explanation has been provided in the said letters seeking for adjournment as also during this writ petition, the petitioners having been granted time to file a detailed representation, as done in the present petition, they failed to submit their explanation within the timeframe fixed by the Regional Commissioner. 6.2. The properties of the Council have been dealt with fraudulently by the petitioners. As such, he submits that the order passed by the Regional Commissioner, taking into consideration the gravity of the issue, is proper and correct. 7. In reply, Sri. Sandeep Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 7.1. The petitioners did not have sufficient time to submit their explanation which they were willing to do, but for the applications filed by them with the Municipal Council, for furnishing certain documents, not having been deliberately considered and documents not furnished, they are unable to do so. 7.2. If the documents are furnished expeditiously by today or tomorrow, his submission is that the explanation can be submitted to the Regional Commissioner by 3.00 p.m. on 27.02.2025. 8. On enquiry as to whether any other application has been made to any other authorities requiring the documents to be supplied by them, he categorically submitted that the only application filed is as regards the application made to respondent No.4, the Municipality. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 9. Sri.Harsha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, initially submitted that no such application has been received. If at all a copy of the application were to be furnished by the petitioners to him, he would communicate it to respondent No.4 and make available the documents which are available on record. He further submitted that, if the petitioners were to seek for a copy of the forged resolution, respondent No.4 would be unable to furnish the same, since that document is not available on the file of respondent No.4. 10. Heard Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Harsh Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the papers. 11. The submission insofar as the recommendation of the Municipal Council is concerned, the submission would enure to the benefit of the petitioners only if the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 administrator had not been appointed on 29.07.2024 in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. 12. Subsection (2) of Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 315. Power to appoint administrator in certain cases. (1) XXX (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, on the appointment of an administrator under sub-section (1), during the period of such appointment, the said municipal council and committees thereof and the President and Vice-president charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act, or any other law, shall cease to exercise any powers and perform and discharge any duties or functions conferred or imposed on them by or under this Act or any other law and all such powers shall be exercised and all such duties and functions shall be performed and discharged by the administrator. 13. A perusal of the above Subsection (2) of Section 315 indicates that, if an administrator were to be appointed, during the period of such appointment, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 the Municipal Council and the committees thereof and the President and Vice-president charged with carryout out the provisions of this Act, or any other law, shall cease to exercise any powers and perform and discharge any duties or functions conferred on them under the Act or any other law and all such duties and functions shall be performed and discharged by the administrator. 14. 14. It is therefore clear that in view of Subsection (2) of Section 315 of the Act of 1964, the administrator on being appointed, replaces the Municipal Council and as such, the recommendation referred of the Municipal Council referred to under Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964 would also be considered a recommendation of the administrator. 15. At this stage Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that a recommendation was made not by the administrator but by the Municipal Commissioner to the administrator, who has in turn - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 forwarded it to the Regional Commissioner. Therefore, the recommendation did not originate from the administrator, he argues that the same is invalid. 16. This argument would also not enure to the benefit of the petitioners inasmuch as the Municipal Commissioner has brought to the notice of the administrator about the actions of the petitioners and has recommended to the administrator to take action on the same. It was for the administrator to have either accepted or rejected the recommendation or report of the Municipal Commissioner. In the present case, the administrator has chosen to accept the recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner and forwarded it to the Regional Commissioner. 17. Thus, merely because the recommendation originated from the office of the Municipal Commissioner would not make the recommendation - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 to be that of the Municipal commissioner under Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964, it is the Deputy Commissioner – Administrator who had recommended to the Regional Commissioner for disqualification of the petitioners, it is the recommendation of the administrator, which has been taken into consideration by the Regional Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that this recommendation of the administrator, being that of the Municipal Council in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 315 of the Act of 1964, would satisfy the requirement of Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964, and no grievance could be made by the petitioners in relation thereto. 18. 18. Insofar as the contention that adequate opportunity had not been provided to the petitioners and that an enquiry has not been held by the Regional Commissioner, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant’s case (supra), that - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 decision was rendered in the context of Sections 55A and 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The said provision had been extracted in para 49 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is extracted hereunder for easy reference: 49. Section 55 of the Act 1965 provides for removal of the President of the Council by No Confidence Motion. Sections 55A and 55B provide a mode of removal of duly elected President on proved misconduct or negligence etc., which read as under: Section 55A.- Removal of President and Vice-President by Government:- Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 55-1A and 55, a President or a Vice-President may be removed from office by the State Government for misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or for neglect of or incapacity to perform, his duties or for being guilty of any disgraceful conduct, and the President or Vice-President so removed shall not be eligible for re-election or re-appointment as President or Vice-President as the case may be, during the remainder of the term of office of the Councillors: Provided that, no such President or Vice- President shall be removed from office, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 55B.- Disqualification for continuing as Councillor or becoming Councillor on removal as President or Vice- President :- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 55A, if a Councillor or a person is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his official duties or being guilty of any disgraceful conduct while holding or while he was holding the office of the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, the State Government may,- (a) disqualify such Councillor to continue as a Councillor for the remainder of his term of office as a Councillor and also for being elected as a Councillor, till the period of six years has elapsed from the order of such disqualification; (b) Disqualify such person for being elected as a Councillor till the period of six years has elapsed from the order of such disqualification. 19. In the said case, charges were laid as against the councillors and notice was issued by the Government in terms of Section 54A. In the present case, there is separate criminal proceedings which had been initiated, where the charge sheet has been laid after investigation on 31.01.2024, a criminal petition for quashing under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Petition Nos.102611/2024 and 102711/2024, came to be dismissed by this Court - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 vide order dated 19.12.2024. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in SLP No.1616/2025, came to be dismissed on 06.02.2025. 20. In the above background, what would have to be looked into is the requirement under Section 41 of the Act of 1964, which is reproduced hereunder: 41. Liability to removal from office. (1)The Government, if it thinks fit on the recommendation of the municipal council, may remove any councillor elected and after such enquiry as it deems necessary, if such councillor has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct, or has become incapable of performing his duties as a councillor Provided that no Councillor shall be removed except after being afforded an opportunity for submitting an explanation. (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). 21. The proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964 requires the Councillor to be afforded an - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 opportunity to submit an explanation. In the present case, although the notice was dated 31.01.2025, the same had admittedly been served on the petitioners only on 06.02.2025. Of course the submission of learned Advocate General in this regard is that the delay in service is on account of the petitioners not accepting the service of notice. Be that as it may, the fact remains that service was effected on 06.02.2025, and the petitioners appeared before the Regional Commissioner on 13.02.2025, and sought for time to submit an explanation. 22. Instead of granting any time, the Regional Commissioner passed the order on the very same day, i.e., on 13.02.2025, which in my considered opinion, is a complete violation of the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act of 1964 and the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the right of the petitioners to submit an explanation, has - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 been negated by the Regional Commissioner, not granting suitable time. 23. The submission now made by Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, if the documents which have been applied to respondent No.4 are furnished, the reply would be furnished by 3:00 p.m. on 27.02.2025. 24. That being so, I am of the considered opinion that such valuable right of the petitioners cannot be deprived when petitioners have come forward now to submit their reply within the date and time frame as stipulated by them. 25. In view of the submissions made by Sri.Harsh Desai that no application has been furnished, the petitioners' counsel is reserved liberty to furnish a copy of the application to the counsel for Respondent No. 4 by the end of today. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 26. At this stage, Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that only one document is sought for being a copy of the disputed resolution dated 09.02.2024. If that be so, Respondent No.4 is directed furnish certified copy of the minute book for meetings held immediately before and after 09.02.2024, as also that of 09.02.2024 if so available as also afford an opportunity to inspect the original minute book, by 1700 hours today. 27. As stated above, the explanation to be personally submitted by the petitioners as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, by 1500 hrs on 27.02.2025 and thereafter orders to be passed by the respondent No.2 Regional Commissioner after considering the explanation offered. 28. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is partly allowed. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3729 WP No. 101414 of 2025 ii. Certiorari is issued, order dated 13.02.2025 bearing No.PRA AA BE:K.M.C/52/2024- 25/E.NO:250815 passed by respondent No.3 – Regional Commissioner at Annexure-A, is quashed. iii. Direction is issued to respondent No.4 to provide certified copies of original minute book as indicated above by 1700 hours today. iv. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to submit a reply by 1500 hours on 27.02.2025. It is made clear that, if the reply is not submitted by that time, then the petitioners shall forfeit the indulgence extended by this Court by this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27