Karnataka HC Quashes Disqualification Of Councillors Over Pre-Election Auction Participation [Read Order]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has set aside the disqualification of two Municipal Corporation councillors, holding that benefits acquired before their election cannot attract disqualification provisions under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj presided over the matter concerning the interpretation of disqualification provisions applicable to elected municipal representatives.

The Court addressed Writ Petition No. 19069 of 2025 filed by Jayant Jadhav and Mangesh Pawar, both councillors of the Belagavi Municipal Corporation, challenging orders that had declared them disqualified from holding office.

The case arose when a complaint was filed before the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi, alleging that the petitioners had violated Section 26(1)(k) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The complaint alleged that their wives had succeeded in an auction of leasehold rights in respect of properties constructed by the Public Works Department.

The Regional Commissioner, by order dated February 10, 2025, upheld the complaint and held that the petitioners stood disqualified under Section 26(1)(k) of the Act. The petitioners appealed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, who dismissed their appeal on June 26, 2025, thereby confirming the disqualification order.

The Court noted that the key factual aspect was undisputed. The Court observed:
“It is undisputed that the auction of the leasehold rights was conducted in the year 2020, at a point in time when the petitioners were not councillors or elected representatives, they having been elected only in the year 2021.”

The Court examined Section 26(1)(k) of the Act and stated:
“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.”
The provision disqualifies persons who have “directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Corporation.”

The Court held:
“In these circumstances, 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. The auction having been conducted prior to their election, the question of misuse or abuse of official position does not arise.”

The complainant’s counsel raised an additional ground regarding violation of Section 19 of the Act, concerning non-disclosure of assets. The petitioners’ counsel contended that the leasehold rights secured by their wives were not disclosed in returns filed under Section 19(2) of the Act.

Addressing this issue, the Court stated:
“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 emphasized 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.”

The Court further observed:
“A proceeding commenced under one provision cannot, midstream, metamorphose into a proceeding under another provision, as such a course would offend principles of fairness and due process.”

However, the Court clarified that separate proceedings under Section 19 already initiated against the petitioners remain unaffected. It stated:
“Those proceedings shall necessarily be adjudicated independently, on their own merits and in accordance with law.”

Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar appeared for the petitioners, while Sri Anand Mandagi, Senior Advocate, appeared for the complainant, and Sri Bhanuprakash V., Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State.

Case Title: Jayant Jadhav & Anr. v. Principal Secretary & Ors.

[Read Order]