Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj set aside the disqualification of two Belagavi Municipal Corporation councillors, quashing the orders that had held them ineligible for allegedly failing to disclose that their wives had secured leasehold rights over Public Works Department-constructed properties through an auction. The Court held that the leasehold auction took place in 2020, before the petitioners were elected as councillors in 2021, and therefore the alleged benefit was not obtained after their election so as to attract the complained disqualification. The Court also noted that any separate action regarding disclosure obligations must proceed independently.

The writ petition was filed by Shri Jayant Jadhav and Shri Mangesh Pawar, elected Councillors of the Belagavi Municipal Corporation, challenging orders passed by the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. The proceedings arose from a complaint filed by a private respondent alleging that the petitioners had incurred disqualification under Section 26(1)(k) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, on the ground that their spouses had obtained leasehold rights in respect of properties constructed by the Public Works Department.

Also Read: Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Service Officer’s Appeal Against ICC POSH Findings: Supreme Court

The Regional Commissioner, by an order dated 10.02.2025, accepted the complaint and held that the petitioners stood disqualified under Section 26(1)(k) of the Act. The petitioners challenged this order before the Principal Secretary, who dismissed the appeal on 26.06.2025 and confirmed the finding of disqualification.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the auction through which their spouses acquired leasehold rights had taken place in 2020, prior to the petitioners’ election as Councillors in 2021, and therefore could not attract disqualification under Section 26(1)(k). The respondents argued that apart from Section 26(1)(k), the petitioners had failed to disclose the leasehold rights in the declarations mandated under Section 19 of the Act, resulting in automatic cessation of membership.

The Court identified the central issue for determination and observed that “the short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is: ‘Whether, on a complaint filed under Section 26(1)(k) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, proceedings could be undertaken and/or orders could be passed under Section 19 of the said Act?’”

After extracting Section 26(1)(k), the Court stated that “a plain reading of Section 26(1)(k) of the KMC Act, 1976 indicates that the provision deals with disqualification for being chosen as, as well as for continuing as, a Councillor.” It recorded that the provision would apply where a Councillor “directly or indirectly, by himself or through his partner, has any share or interest in any work done by order of the Corporation or in any contract or employment with or under, or by or on behalf of, the Corporation.”

On the factual matrix, the Court noted that “it is undisputed that the auction of the leasehold rights was conducted in the year 2020, at a point of time when the petitioners were not Councillors or elected representatives, they having been elected only in the year 2021.” In this context, the Court observed that “the alleged acquisition of leasehold rights cannot, in my considered opinion, fall within the ambit of Section 26(1)(k) of the KMC Act, 1976, as the benefit was not derived after the petitioners were elected as Councillors.” It further stated that “the auction having been conducted prior to their election, the question of misuse or abuse of official position does not arise.”

Addressing the respondents’ reliance on Section 19 of the Act, the Court recorded that “it is true that any infraction of Section 19 may entail consequences, including cessation of membership.” However, it clarified that “proceedings under Section 19 are required to be initiated by way of a specific reference under Section 19(3) of the Act, which constitutes a distinct and independent statutory mechanism.”

The Court categorically stated that “proceedings initiated under Section 26(1)(k) of the KMC Act, 1976 cannot be converted or transposed into proceedings under Section 19 of the Act during the course of enquiry, unless the notice at the very inception clearly indicates invocation of both provisions.” It further recorded that “a proceeding commenced under one provision cannot, midstream, metamorphose into a proceeding under another provision, as such course would offend principles of fairness and due process.”

Also Read: Everything Cannot Be Countenanced; Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Into WhatsApp Posts Allegedly Depicting Hindu Deities Obscenely

The Court directed that “the writ petition is allowed.  A certiorari is issued, order dated 10.02.2025 bearing No. Pra Aa Be/K.M.C/ViVa 05/2024-25 at Annexure-B issued by respondent No.2 is quashed.  The order dated 26.06.2025 bearing No. NaAE 36 MLR 2025 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1 is quashed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri Anand Mandagi, Senior Advocate with Sri Nitin R. Balabandi, Advocate, Sri Bhanu Prakash V., Additional Advocate General with Sri Boppanna Beliyappa, AGA, Smt. Sumana Baligar, Advocate

Case Title: Shri Jayant Jadhav & Another v. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others 

Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:2211

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 19069 of 2025 (LB-RES)

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj