- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34255 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. H.C. GIRISH, S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.08 RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1483, PARK ROAD, N.R. EXTENSION UTTARA BADAVANE, HASSAN-573201 2. H.M. RAKSHITH KUMAR S/O LATE V. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.01 NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAJAGATTA, HASSAN-573201. 3. J. MANJUNATH S/O JAVARAIAH, AGED BOUT 58 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO. 02 ASHOKA BADAVANE, ADUVALLI, HASSAN-573201 4. SRI. SHANKARNAD S/O MUNIRANTHNAM T.M, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARD NO.3 R/AT.GURUSHIRI NILAYA, SHANKARIPURAM LAYOUT, HASSAN-573201 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 5. SRI. VASUDEV S.H, S/O LATE S.V. HANUMANTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARD NO.3 R/AT. LAKSHMI NIVAS, UDAYAGIRI, HASSAN-573201 6. SMT. HEMALATHA W/O M.K. KAMALKUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO. 05 KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN-573201 7. G.R. SRINIVAS S/O LATE G. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO. 06 K.R. PURAM, HASSAN-573201 8. R. SANTHOSH S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO. 07 RAKSHANPURAM, HASSAN-573201. 9. SMT. JANAKI KRISHNAMURTHY W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN WARD NO.10 BAGADERAKOPPALU, SALAGAME ROAD HASSAN-573201 10. H.K. YOGENDRA KUMAR (BABU) S/O LATE H.N. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 HASSAN, WARD NO.11 R.C. ROAD, HASSAN-573201 11. SMT. SAVITHA KRISHNAMURTHY, W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN WARD, NO.12 HEMAVATHI NAGARA, HASSAN-573201 12. H.C. MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN WARD NO. 13 ARYABATA ROAD, JAYANGARA, HASSAN-573201 13. SMT. SHILPA P B W/O VIKRAM H B, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN WARD NO. 14 SANGAMESHWARA BADAVANE HASSAN-573201 14. SMT. ASHWINI MAHESH W/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN WARD NO.15 LAXMIPURA BADAVANE HASSAN-573201 15. NAVEEN NAGARAJ S/O HARA NAGARJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.16 SHIVAJYOTHINAGARA, ADLIMANE HASSAN-573201 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 16. SRI. RAFEEK AHEMED S/O MAHAMAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN WARD NO.18 EDGA ROAD, AJADMOHALLA HASSAN-573201 17. SMT. RAJIYA BEGUM W/O AKMAL AHAMED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN WARD NO.19 TALUK OFFICE ROAD, BAHAR PETE, HASSAN-573201 18. AMIRJAN S/O ABDUL HAKIMSAB AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN, WARD NO.20 PENSION MOHALLA HASSAN-573201 19. SMT. NASIMA BHANU W/O ISRHAD PASHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN WARD NO.21 PENSION MOHALLA, HASSAN-573201 20. SMT. GOUSIYA ALMAS W/O AFIJULLA REHMAN MEHABUB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN, WARD NO.22 MOCHI COLONY, HASSAN-573201 21. C.R. SHANKAR S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN WARD NO.23, CHANNAPATNA, HASSAN-573201 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 22. SMT. CHANDRAKALA S NAGESH W/O H.R. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN WARD NO.25 TELUGARA BEEDHI HASSAN-573201 23. SMT. ALFIYA FAYAJ W/O H.K. FAYAJ AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN WARD NO.26 VALLABABAI ROAD, HASSAN-573201 24. SMT. SUJATHA MAHESH W/O MAHESH T. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN WARD NO.27 VALLABABAI ROAD HASSAN-573201 25. SYED AKBAR S/O LATE SYED KASIM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN, WARD NO.28 HUNASINAKERE, HASSAN-573201 26. C. KRANTHI S/O B.V. CHANDRAPRASAD TYAGI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN, WARD NO.30 AMBEDKAR NAGARA, HASSAN-573201 27. SMT. VIAJAYA, W/O NAGARAJU B.C, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, 3RD MAIN ROAD, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 4TH CROSS, SIDDAIAH NAGAR, NEAR K.E.B., B.M. ROAD, HASSAN- 573201 28. CHANDRASHEKARA, S/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.32 KATTANAGERI BEEDHI, HASSAN-573201. 29. H.V. CHANDREGOWDA, S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.33 HALUVAGILU ROAD, TANNIRUHALLA, HASSAN-573201 30. MOHAN R, S/O RAGHUPATHI RAO S, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.34 GANDHINAGARA, CHANNAPATNA, HASSAN-573201 31. SMT. K. LATHADEVI SURESH, W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN, WARD NO.35 M. HOSAKOPPALU, HASSAN-573201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SRI. MAHAMMED TAHIR A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE DISTRICT-573201 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-73201 5. THE HASSAN CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, (NOW UPGRADED TO THE CORPORATION THE CITY OF HASSAN), B.M ROAD, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SMT. SPOORTHY V., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION OF RESPONDENT NO.5 CORPORATION IMMEDIATELY AS PER SECTION 503(4) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 18.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CAV ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct the election of respondent No.5 as per Section 503(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’) and to quash the notification bearing No.£ÀCE 293 JAJ¯ïDgï 2025(e) dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.1 and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to appoint administrator to respondent No.5 and continue the petitioners as the councillors till the elections are held to respondent No.5. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that they are elected councillors of the respondent No.5 and were elected on 18.09.2018. The respondent No.5 was upgraded to status of a Mahanagar Palike in March, 2025. They contend that the first meeting of the councillors to elect the President and Vice- President of respondent No.5 was held on 29.10.2020 and the results were declared on 23.04.2021. Subsequently, the election for the President and Vice-President for 2nd term was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 held on 21.08.2024. The petitioners claim that on 28.04.2025, the respondent No.1 issued a notification declaring the City Municipal Area of Hassan, as Large urban Area and upgraded it to the status of corporation by invoking Sections 3, 4, 500, 501, 503, 505 of the Act, 1976. (ii) They contend that by virtue of Section 503(1) and (4) of the Act, 1976, a corporation shall duly be constituted for the larger urban area under the Act within a period of six months from the declaration of notification referred under sub- section (1). As such the declaration of City Municipal Council to the status of corporation was made on 28.04.2025 and in view of Section 503 (4) of the Act, 1976, the election to the upgraded corporation had to be conducted within six months i.e., before 28.10.2025. Since no steps were taken to conduct the election in respect of the respondent No.5 as per Section 503(4) of the Act, 1976, the government may at any time appoint an administrator under Section 99 or 100 of the Act, 1976. (iii) They contend that it is clear from Section 99 and 100 of the Act, 1976, that the government has no power or - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 authority to appoint an administrator to the corporations, which have been upgraded from City Municipal Council to the status of a corporation, till the conduct of election to the newly constituted corporation. They contend that they do not fall under Section 99 or 100 of the Act, 1976 for the government to invoke the said provision and appoint an administrator. Neither there is power or authority to appoint administrator after the expiry of the term of the councillors elected to the Municipal Council. Therefore, they contend that they should be continued as councillors till the elections are held to the respondent No.5. (iv) They further contend that the state government has no power or authority either under Section 315 of the Act, 1976, to appoint an administrator to the respondent No.5. They further contend that as per Section 501-C(j) of the Act, 1976, the councillors of the elected Municipal Council will continue as the councillors of the corporation and said provision does not limit the term of the councillors as prescribed by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as 'the KMC Act, 1964'). Therefore, it is contended that, notwithstanding the term of the councillor prescribed under the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the councillors who are continued into the upgraded corporations will continue to be councillors till the constitution of the newly upgraded corporation or till elections are held to the newly upgraded corporation. (v) They also contend that after the writ petition was filed, the respondent No.1 has issued a notification dated 15.11.2025 appointing administrator to the respondent No.5. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the notification appointing an administrator and they have also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct election to respondent No.5 immediately and continue them as councillors of respondent No.5 till the elections are held to the respondent No.5. 3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, contending that the petitioner No.2 has filed W.P.No.29209/2025. seeking the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Communication bearing No. MUNISI(3)11/2025-26 dated 22/04/2025 vide Annexure-C passed by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 Respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and equity. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to calculate the term of the Respondent No.4 TMC by Excluding the period where the pendentent No.5 TMC being managed by the Respondent No.2 Administrator as per representation dated 12/09/2025 vide Annexure-D in the interest of justice and equity. c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case." 4. In the said petition, he has sought for amendment to add the following additional prayer: ”(b) (i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to appoint an administrator to Respondent No.4 CMC on expiry of the term of office of the Petitioners. (b) (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct election to Respondent 4 CMC." 5. It is contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 6. (i) They contend that the State Government had issued a notification for reservation to the office of President and Vice-President to various categories for the 9th term in respect of City Municipal Council (henceforth referred to as ‘CMC’), Town Municipal Council (henceforth referred to as ‘TMC’) and Town Panchayath, vide notification dated 03.09.2018 under Rule 13 and Rule 13-A of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election (Amendment) Rules, 2020. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, had published the name of the newly elected councillors, who were elected in the general election to City Municipal Council, Hassan vide notification dated 18.09.2018. Aggrieved by the notification dated 03.09.2018, Sri.Alam Basha and other councillor of CMC Sindanur had filed W.P.No.47171- 47190/2018. Some other councillors, who were aggrieved by the notification approached this Court and filed separate writ petitions, which were dismissed on 18.01.2019. (ii) It is contended that following the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.47171-47190/2018, the petitioners therein filed Writ Appeal No.157-176/2019. During the pendency of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 said Writ Appeal, the learned Advocate General submitted that the State Government has decided to withdraw the notification dated 03.09.2018 and issue a fresh notification. Accordingly, W.A.No.157-176/2019 was disposed of. After the State Government withdrew the notification dated 03.09.2018, it has issued a fresh notification for reservation to the office of the President and Vice-President to various categories for the 9th term in respect of CMC, TMC and Town Panchayath vide notification dated 11.03.2020. (iii) This notification was challenged in W.P.No.5999/2020 and connected writ petitions. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the State Government on 17.03.2020 not to precipitate the matter. During the pendency of this petition the State Government brought to the notice of this Court that a cabinet subcommittee is constituted to look into the matter. After the recommendation of the cabinet subcommittee, guidelines were issued for reservation to the office of the President and Vice-President of Municipalities on 11.09.2020 and consequent to the issuance of the guidelines, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 the State Government withdrew the notification dated 11.03.2020. (iv) Thereafter, the State Government issued the notification reserving the office of the President and Vice- President in various categories for the 9th term in respect of CMC, TMC and Town Panchayath vide notification dated 08.10.2020 under Rule 13 and 13-A of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election (Amendment) Rules, 2020. Aggrieved by the government notification dated 08.10.2020, Sri.R.Basavaraj, councillor of TMC Chennagiri filed W.P.No.11566/2020, challenging the notification dated 08.10.2020 and prayed to quash the notification. The petitioner herein, namely Sri.H.C.Girish and some councillors, who were aggrieved by the notification approached this Court. This Court granted interim stay of the notification dated 08.10.2020 in respect of all City Municipal Councils in the State on 15.10.2020 in W.P.Nos.11439/2020, 11420/2020 and 11427/2020. (v) They contend that pursuant to an interim order granted by this Court, the respondent-State filed Writ Appeal - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 No.516/2020 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 21.10.2020 directed the respondent- State to hold elections pursuant to the notification dated 08.10.2020 to the post of President and Vice-President of all City Municipal Councils in the State on or before 02.11.2020. Thereafter, Writ Appeal was allowed on 05.11.2020. 7. It is submitted that Sri.Dinesh Babu, councillor, CMC, Harihara filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in SLP No.12683/2020. The said Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 28.10.2020 holding that the observation of the Division Bench with effect that the outcome of the elections referred to in respective writ petition shall be subject to the result of the concerned writ petition. However, the election programme may proceed until the stage of counting, but the final results of the subject election referred to in the concerned writ petition shall not be declared until the pronouncement of the final judgment by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the pending writ petitions. 8. They contend that pursuant to the interim order of this Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner, Hassan and the election officer conducted an election meeting for the office of the post of President and Vice-President of CMC, Hassan for the 9th term on 29.10.2020. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the election officer proceeded with the election programme until the stage of counting. Therefore, the election officer reserved the declaration of results for the post of President and Vice-President. 9. The respondents contend that this Court in terms of an order dated 19.11.2020 in W.P.No.11566/2020 along with other writ petitions related to the reservation of President and Vice-president in all Municipal Councils set aside all the three said notifications dated 08.10.2020 and directed the respondent-State to notify reservation to the post of President and Vice-President in all the Municipal Councils within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and also issue certain other directions to the respondent-State. 10. The State then challenged the order passed in W.P.No.11566/2020 before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 No.551/2020. The Division Bench overturned the order of the learned Single Judge and held as follows: ”46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that in case there is a non-compliance/violation of a provision of the Act, it is a ground for Election Petition. In the present case also, if there is a violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 2009 and Rule 13 and 13 of the Rules of 2011, certainly it is a ground to file an Election Petition. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgments, writ petition was certainly a bar and the only remedy available was to file an Election Petition after conclusion of the election. 47. In the considered opinion of this Court, as provided under the Rules of 1965 relating to Election Petition, violation of statutory provisions of the Act or violation of the provisions under the Rules can be a ground for filing an Election Petition and therefore, in the matter of reservation of Offices of President and Vice President, there is certainly a remedy to challenge the same on the ground that the notification dated 8.10.2020 was issued contrary to the statutory provisions as contained under Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules of 1965. In the considered opinion of this Court, in light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 48. As this Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court has not dealt with - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 the issue of reservation in respect of individual cases in other connected writ petitions and all the petitioners/persons aggrieved shall certainly be free to file Election Petitions challenging the election held for the Posts of President and Vice President in respect of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths. It is needless to mention that this Court has not observed anything on merits to the extent the notification dated 8.10.2020 is concerned as it relates to entire State of Karnataka and in case, election petition/s is/are filed, the validity of the notification and the election shall be looked into by the District Judge/Election Tribunal in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge or without being influenced by the order passed by this Court." 11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan and the election officer declared results of the elected candidate for the post of President and Vice- President of CMC, Hassan on 23.04.2021. Thereafter, the respondents in Writ Appeal No.551/2020 filed SLP.No.7090/ 2020 challenging the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.551/2020. The Hon'ble Apex Court passed an order dated 24.03.2022, which reads as follows: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 "To give quietus to all the contentious issues, we direct the State to first re-work the chart strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules without reference to the guidelines prepared by the Committee. That can be conveniently done by taking help of technology (IT) on or before 02.04.2022. The re-worked chart be made over to the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties on or before 02.04.2022". 12. It is contended that in compliance with aforesaid order, the State Government filed an affidavit dated 06.04.2022 detailing the allocation of reservation for various categories across 61 CMC from 1st to 10th term, while avoiding repetitions as much as possible. The State Government also requested for additional time to finalise the reservations for TMC and Town Panchayath. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition was listed for hearing on 07.04.2022 and the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order: "Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel appearing for the State, prays for some more time for giving a firm proposal in reference to the observation made by this Court on earlier occasion. He submits that the modalities to design a software is still being examined and it may take some more time, until then the Department has - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 prepared a flow chart on notional basis which, according to the Department, is strictly in adherence to the norms specified in the applicable Rules. Be that as it may, hearing of these matters is deferred until 19.04.2022, as requested. In the meantime, the State is free to file appropriate affidavit, if intends to rely on the flow chart manually prepared at the Department level. That be placed on record along with affidavit of the Secretary of the concerned Department clearly stating that the flow chart as presented is accurate and error-free, in all respects" 13. It is contended that the State Government requested the National Informatics Centre (henceforth referred to as ‘NIC’) to develop a software in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was submitted to the Supreme Court by an affidavit dated 09.05.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.05.2022, agreed that the steps taken by the State Government are in conformity with the procedure to be followed under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and permitted the State to proceed further in the matter and ensure that the software is made ready within five weeks as assured by the NIC. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 14. The NIC submitted a draft reservation chart of Town Panchayaths on 19.07.2022 and draft reservation charts of CMC and TMC on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022 to the Urban Development Department (henceforth referred to as ‘UDD’). After verification and clarification by the UDD, NIC submitted the revised charts, which was then submitted to the Supreme Court by the way of an affidavit dated 21.07.2022 and 16.08.2022. It is contended that NIC has submitted the final reservation chart for CMC, TMC and Town Panchayath through the software developed and submitted the same to the State Government. The same was then placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.09.2022 by way of an affidavit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again took up the matter on 13.12.2022 and passed the following order: "Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has referred to the compliance report and points out that the authorities in terms of this Court's order have re-worked the reserved constituencies for the Municipal Council Election with the aid of the NIC. This exercise, however, will obviously work for future elections only. On the compliance report, so filed, the petitioners have no objection but they - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 would urge for hearing of the special leave petition which relates to the election which was held in the year 2020." 15. It is further contended that the issue is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court for consideration of the election issues, which was held in the year 2020 for the 9th term. 16. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforementioned observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue of reservation for the 10th term has been resolved, the respondent has already submitted the reservation chart vide an affidavit and accordingly, the issue of reservations for the 10th term has attained finality as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. It is contended that the State Government has decided to appoint an Administrator under Section 315 of the KMC Act, 1964, due to continuous litigations before the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court relating to reservation the office of President and Vice-President to various categories for the 9th term in respect of CMC, TMC and Town Panchayaths in the State resulting in non-finalisation of the reservation for the 10th term. Accordingly, vide order dated 31.10.2023, the Deputy - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 Commissioner, Hassan was appointed as an Administrator of CMC, Hassan. 18. (i) Meanwhile, certain elected councillors of Holenarsipura TMC filed W.P.No.26536/2023 before this Court and sought consideration of their representation regarding the conduct of elections to the posts of President and Vice- President of Holenarsipura TMC. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court in terms of an order dated 12.12.2023 and the State was directed to issue the reservation order within 60 days and thereafter, issue necessary notifications notifying the elections within 30 days. (ii) Likewise, similar Writ Petitions by namely in W.P.No.2448/2024, W.P.No.3117/2024 and W.P.No.3438/2024, were filed by members of chitradurga Bannur and Kushalanagara TMC respectively, seeking directions to issue a reservation notification for the post of President and Vice-president of the TMC within 60 days. These writ petitions were heard and dismissed on 09.08.2024, in lieu of the fact that the notification for the 10th term was already issued on - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 05.08.2024 and the election schedule for the above three TMCs were fixed. 19. It is contended that the State had issued the draft Rules under the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice- President) (Election) (Amendment) Rules, 2024 made a notification dated 12.07.2024 and invited objections and suggestions within 15 days from the date of its publication. After considering the objections and suggestions, the State issued the final Rules called the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) (Election) (Amendment) Rules, 2024 on 05.08.2024. The State Government then issued the reservation notifications dated 05.08.2024, which were then challenged in (1) W.P.No.22547/2024 before the Principal Bench of this Court and (2) W.P.No.104801/2024 before the Dharwad Bench and (3) W.P.No.202124/2024 before the Kalaburagi Bench. 20. W.P.No.104801/2024 W.P.No.202124/2024 and other petitions were dismissed with a direction to the State Government to take steps to finalize and conduct the election in - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 accordance with law. Consequently, the Principal Bench dismissed W.P.No.22547/2024 vide order dated 20.01.2025. 21. It is contended that during the pendency of the aforesaid three petitions, the calendar of events was issued and the election process was completed in most of the CMC, TMC, Town Panchayath, except the ones that were pending before this Court. After the disposal of the writ petitions and consequent to the notification, calendar of events was issued to various CMC, TMC and Town Panchayaths for conducting the 10th term elections for the posts of President and Vice-President across the state. In so far as Hassan CMC is concerned, it is contended that election to the posts of President and Vice- president for the 10th term was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan on 21.08.2024. 22. It is submitted that in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26536/2024, a notification dated 05.08.2024 was issued for the 10th term. The reservation chart for the 10th term submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State through an affidavit is in line with the provisions of Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 1964, Rule 13 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) (Election) Rules, 1965 and the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) (Election) (Amendment) Rules. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein is contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is liable to be dismissed. 23. It is contended that the State Election Commission has requested the State Government to issue the ward-wise reservation of the urban local bodies vide letter dated 27.01.2025. Accordingly, the State Government has issued a notification in respect of the Hassan City Corporation including the existing CMC, Hassan, on the basis of the proposals submitted by the Director of Municipal Administration, Bangalore and the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan respectively. Thereafter, with the approval of the State Government and with the approval of His Excellency the Governor issued a final notification dated 28.04.2025. 24. After issuance of the notification dated 28.04.2025 the respondent state directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan to submit proposal to the State Government regarding - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 delimitation of Hassan City Corporation vide letters dated 02.07.2025 and 21.11.2025. The Deputy Commissioner submitted the proposal on 25.11.2025 and the same is under process. The State Government has issued a draft delimitation notification calling for objections from the general public and has declared that a final delimitation notification would be issued thereafter. 25. It is contended that this Court in W.P.No.27887/2025, W.P.No.26543/2025 and W.P.No.29209/2025 passed an interim order which reads as follows: "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is ordered that till the expiry of the term of the respondent No.4 -Town Municipal Council, Periyapatna, the State Government shall not take any steps to appoint an Administrator under Section 315 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act, 1964'). The question whether the State Government is invested with the power under Section 315 of the Act, 1964 to appoint an Administrator in the facts and circumstances of the case is kept open. It is open for the State Government to seek modification of this order". - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 26. It is claimed that under Section 18(1A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and Article 243-U of the Constitution of India, every Municipality, unless dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The petitioner herein in W.P.No.29209/2025 and W.P.No.34255/2025 are councillors of CMC, Hassan and were declared as councillors of Hassan CMC on 18.09.2018 by the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. The first meeting of the councillors was held on 29.10.2020. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the State Government has concluded that the term of the councillors of the CMC, Hassan expired on 28.10.2025 under Article 243-U of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is contended that though the councillors of CMC have continued as councillors of the interim Council of the Hassan City Corporation, the State Government has issued notification on 15.11.2025 and appointed the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru as Administrator under Section 509 of the Act, 1976. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 27. It is claimed that after the City Municipal Council, Hassan was upgraded as Hassan City Corporation, the councillors of CMC, Hassan continued to hold office, even the President and Vice-President of CMC, Hassan, also continued to hold office as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Hassan City Corporation under Section 501-C(j)(k) of the Act, 1976. It is contended that this Court in W.P.No.27887/2025 directed the State and the State Election Commission to conduct a meeting regarding delimitation and ward reservations. The State Election Commission conducted a joint meeting with the State Government on 05.11.2025 with regard to issuance of ward wise reservation of urban local bodies and finalisation of delimitation process. As discussed in the said meeting, the UDD has taken steps to issue draft delimitation notification on the basis of the proposal submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. 28. It is contended that Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, provides that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of Section 501-C of the Act, 1976, the government may by order published in the official - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 Gazette as the occasion may require, do anything which appears to be necessary to remove the difficulties. In view of the provisions contained in Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Section 509 of the Act, 1976, the State Government has issued notification on 15.11.2025 appointing the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru as Administrator of Hassan City Corporation. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is wholly mischievous and not maintainable. 29. This apart, it is contended that the Dharwad Bench of this Court in the case of Allauddin and Others and State of Karnataka - W.P.No.106387/2025 had passed an order dated 10.11.2025 holding that the term of elected councillors cannot be extended beyond period of 5 years in terms of the mandate under Clause (1) of Article 243U of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. 30. (i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were elected as councillors of the respondent No.5 on 18.09.2018. The first meeting to elect the President and Vice-President of respondent No.5 was held on - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 29.10.2020 and results were announced on 23.04.2021. He therefore contends that the term of the petitioners has to be reckoned from the date of the first meeting i.e. 29.10.2020. He contends that on 28.04.2025, the respondent No.1 issued a notification declaring the City Municipal Area of Hassan as large urban area and upgraded it to a corporation to the City of Hassan, by invoking Sections 3, 4, 500, 501, 503 and 505 of the Act, 1976. (ii) He contends that as per Section 503 (4) of the Act, 1976, a corporation shall be duly constituted for the larger urban area within a period of six months from the date of declaration of the notification under sub-section (1) Section 503 of the Act, 1976. Therefore, he contends that in view of Section 503(4) of the Act, 1976, the election to the upgraded Hassan Municipal Corporation had to be conducted within six months i.e. before 28.10.2025. He contends that no steps were taken to conduct the election with an oblique intent to appoint an administrator. (iii) He contends that under Section 501-C(j) of the Act, 1976, the councillors of the elected City Municipal Council will - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 continue as the councillors of the corporation and the said provision does not limit the term of the councillors as prescribed under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Therefore, he contends that notwithstanding the term of the councillors as prescribed under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the councillors who are continued as councillors of the upgraded corporations will continue to be councillors till the constitution of newly upgraded corporation or till elections are held to the newly upgraded corporation. (iv) He therefore contends that the State Government has no authority under Section 99 or 100 of the Act, 1976 to appoint an administrator to the corporations or for those corporations which are upgraded from City Municipal Council to corporation status, till the conduct of election to the newly constituted corporation as per Section 503(4) of the Act, 1976. He therefore contends that the respondents cannot invoke Section 509 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, as they have not conducted elections to the respondent No.5 as per the mandate under Section 501-C(2) of the Act, 1976. He therefore submits that the impugned order appointing an - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 administrator has to be set at naught and a direction has to be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct elections of the respondent No.5 corporation as provided under Section 503 (4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. 31. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that several litigations regarding the reservation roster for the posts of the President and Vice President of Municipal Corporations and local bodies, which went upto the Supreme Court is the main reason that the elections could not be held. She emphasis that the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel in this writ petition are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Allauddin and Others and State of Karnataka, W.P.No.106387/2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench while considering similar contentions has framed several points for consideration, one of which was: "Whether the term of the elected councillors can be extended beyond a period of five years more so in the view of the mandate under Article 243U of the Constitution of India?." - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 32. She contends that a Co-ordinate Bench after considering various case laws held that the term of elected councillors cannot be extended beyond a period of five years in terms of the mandate under Clause (1) of Article 243U of the Constitution of India. She invited the attention of the Court to various proceedings initiated by several local bodies, which contributed to the delay in conducting elections to the urban local bodies. She therefore contends that since elections could not be held due to a reason beyond the control of the State Government, the State in its wisdom invoked Section 99 or 100 of the Act, 1976. She therefore contends that there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is liable to be dismissed. 33. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondents. 34. The petitioners are undisputedly elected councillors of the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Hassan and they were elected on 18.09.2018. The first meeting of the council was held on 29.10.2020 to elect the President and Vice President of the respondent No.5. It is to be noted under Article 243U of - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 the Constitution of India, the term of municipality shall be for 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. 35. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent No.5 was upgraded as a Municipal Area or as a Municipal Corporation. The effect of such upgradation is contained in Section 501-C of the Act, 1976 and for the purpose of this petition, Section 501-C(j) of the Act, 1976 is relevant and reads as follows: “Until the reconstitution of the corporation in accordance with the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the councillors of the corporation of the larger urban area shall consist of the councillors of the larger urban area, Municipal Council and such number of other persons as may be nominated by the government and such nominated persons shall as far as may be practicable be persons who are the members of the other local authorities which have ceased to exist.” 36. In the case on hand, the term of the petitioners expired on 28.10.2025. However, they intend to keep their position alive by contending that till corporation is constituted, they are entitled to function as the councillors. This reasoning - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15458 WP No. 34255 of 2025 flawed as the term of the Municipal Council is five years from the date of the first meeting and “No longer”. The petitioners term had already come to an end at the time of filing this petition, therefore have no locus standi to file this writ petition. Besides this, elections to the Municipal Corporation could not be held due to continued litigation before various Courts from time to time and it is in that context that the State Government exercised power under Section 100 of the Act, 1976. The State Government has appointed an Administrator under Section 509 of the Act, 1976 to remove difficulties as elections could not be held due to reasons beyond its control and there is no provision under the Act, 1976 to appoint an Administrator. Therefore, the petitioners cannot assail the notification issued by the State appointing an Administrator to the Hassan City Municipal Corporation. 37. In that view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55