- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107755 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: AMZAD PATEL S/O SAYED MADAR HUSSAIN PATEL, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL, R/O. WARD NO.3, MADINA NAGAR, HAMALA NAGAR, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583 231. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V. TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA, NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 080, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 231. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.18 15:23:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 5. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 231. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG FOR SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. HAREESH S. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OR DECLARATION DECLARING THAT, THE PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTINUE OR HELD THE POST OF PRESIDENT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL TILL 26.04.2026 BY CONSIDERING THE FIRST MEETING HELD ON 27.04.2021 OF 5TH RESPONDENT CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, DATED 27.04.2021 BEARING NO.NIL; CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/CORRESPONDENCE DATED 27.01.2025 BEARING FILE NO.SECK/ULB/OTHR/1/2025-ULB ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL (AT SL.NO.165) VIDE ANNEXURE- S TO THE WRIT PETITION AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02ND DECEMBER 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) The petitioner has sought a declaration that he is eligible to continue or to hold the office of President of City Municipal Council, Koppal, till 26.04.2026, on the premise that his tenure commenced from 24.04.2021, the date on which according to the petitioner first meeting of the City Municipal Council, Koppal was held. 2. The petitioner has sought to quash the correspondence dated 27.01.2025 marked at Annexure-S in terms of which, the State Election Commission has directed the State to furnish the details relating to ward wise reservation to hold elections to the Municipal Council. 3. On 15.11.2025 the petitioner filed an application to stay the operation of the notification dated 06.11.2025 appointing the Administrator to the Municipal Council, Koppal. 4. The petitioner contends that his term as the President of the Municipal Council will come to an end on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 26.04.2026 by reckoning the date of first meeting as 27.04.2021. 5. The respondent-State has not accepted the petitioner’s contention and contended that the first meeting of the Municipal Council, Koppal was held on 29.10.2020. 6. Thus the moot question that requires consideration is whether the first meeting of the Municipal Council, elected in the year 2018, was held on 29.10.2020 or was held on 27.04.2021. 7. It is an admitted fact that on 06.09.2018 election to the Municipal Council, Koppal was held to elect 32 councillors. Later, the notification providing for reservation to the office of President and Vice President was published by the State and said order was called in question in Writ Petition No.11439/2020. The operation of the notification was stayed vide order dated 15.10.2020 in the said Writ Petition. The order in writ petition was called in question in Writ Appeal No.516/2020. The Division Bench of the Court vide order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 dated 21.10.2020 directed election to be held subject to the result of the respective writ petitions. 8. The said order in the writ appeal was assailed before the Apex Court in SLP No.12683/2020. The SLP is disposed of on 21.10.2020. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- “However, the election(s) programme may proceed until the stage of counting. But the final results of the subject election(s), referred to in the concerned writ petition(s), shall not be declared until the pronouncement of the final judgment by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the pending writ petition(s).” 9. It is relevant to notice that after the Court permitted the election in terms of the order dated 21.10.2020 in W.A. No.516/2020, the meeting of the elected councillors was scheduled on 29.10.2020 to elect the President and the Vice President. On that day, the elections were held, the votes were counted. However, the result of the election to the office of President and Vice President was not declared on 29.10.2020 in view of the order dated 21.10.2020 referred to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 above passed by the Apex Court. The meeting was adjourned and it was convened on 27.04.2021. 10. It is an admitted fact that the meeting was held on 27.04.2021 to declare the results of the election. 11. The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioner would contend that under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Act, 1964) the tenure of the member of the council would be 5 years from the date when the first meeting is held. Since the first meeting scheduled on 29.10.2020 was adjourned without declaring the results of the election, the tenure of the petitioner who is elected as the President in terms of the results announced on 27.04.2021 should be reckoned from 27.04.2021 and not from 29.10.2020 as contended by the respondent-State. 12. Elaborating his submission learned senior counsel would urge that on 29.10.2020 though the meeting was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 convened, same was not held and was deferred in view of the order in the Special Leave Petition referred to above. 13. To substantiate the contention, the learned senior counsel would refer to Annexure-J and emphasized that the meeting was adjourned on 29.10.2020. 14. The Annexure-J is extracted as under:- “F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃR (1) jAzÀ (5) gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB 29.10.2020 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆ¥Àà¼À £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÉ CzsÀåPÀë ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ½UÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ¸À¨sÁAUÀt PÉÆ¥Àà¼À £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR (6) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀ EªÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀAB£ÀE 54PÉJADgï 2020 ¢: 29.10.2020 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÉÆ¥Àà¼À £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀë ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À¢gÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀB 29.10.2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¥À°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸ÀzÉà ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR (7) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÉ CzsÀåPÀë ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ½UÉ £ÀqÉzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¥À°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ²WÀæªÁV ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB 29.10.2020 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯ÁzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.04.2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄB ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00UÀAmÉUÉ PÉÆ¥Àà¼À £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁAUÀtzÀ°è £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÉ CzsÀåPÀë ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ½UÉ £ÀqÉzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¥À°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß WÉÆö¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ PÀgÉ¢gÀĪÀ F ¸À¨sÉUÉ RÄzÁÝV ºÁdjgÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State would contend that admittedly the meeting to elect the President and the Vice President was held on 29.10.2020, even the election was held and votes were counted on the said date. However, the result of the election was not announced in view of the stay order granted by the Apex Court. Thus, for all practical purposes the meeting has taken place on 29.10.2020 and the provisions of the Act, 1964 do not provide for the reckoning the first meeting from the date the election of the President and Vice-President, but from the date of the first meeting. 16. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 17. The relevant portion of Section 18 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 provides for the term of office of a Councilor. “18. Term of office of Councillors.— (1) The term of office of a councillor,— (a) elected at a general election shall be five years; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 (b) nominated under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 shall, subject to the pleasure of the Government be five years; (1A) The term of office of the councillor elected at a general election or nominated in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 11 shall commence on the date appointed for the first meeting of the municipal council.” xxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied) Under Section 18(1A), the term of office of the councillor elected under the general election or nominated in Clause-(b) of sub-section(1) shall commence on the date appointed for the first meeting of the Municipal Council. 18. The first meeting was scheduled on 29.10.2020 to elect the President and the Vice President. It is also not disputed that election was held and the votes were counted on the said day. However, the result of the election was deferred in view of the order passed by the Apex Court referred to above. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 19. It is relevant to notice that the Apex Court has not stayed the meeting. The Apex Court has only deferred the announcement of the result. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the first meeting was held on 28.10.2020 though the purpose of holding the meeting was not fully accomplished as the result of the election for which the meeting was convened was not announced. The provision referred to above does not say that tenure of the councillor starts from the date when the councillor is elected as the President or Vice President of the council. 20. The Act also does not provide for the tenure of the President beyond the tenure of the council. This Court in Ashfaq Ahamed and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Others and connected matters1 has held that the tenure of the council is only for 5 years from the date of the first meeting and not beyond. Since the date of the first election has to be reckoned from 29.10.2020, the contention of the petitioner that the date has to be reckoned from the date 1 W.P. No.107806/2025 and connected matters - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18332 WP No. 107755 of 2025 when the election results were announced cannot be accepted. There is no scope to interpret Section 18 to hold that the date of the first meeting is to be construed as the date on which the election to the office the President is convened. 21. Though it is urged by referring to Annexure-J that the meeting was adjourned, what is required to be noticed is the meeting was adjourned after holding the election and counting the votes, only to defer the announcement of the result. Thus, the said meeting held on 29.10.2020 is indeed the first meeting of the council. 22. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 102