Court Rules Acquisition of Leasehold Rights Prior to Election Does Not Lead to Disqualification Under KMC Act
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the disqualification orders against Shri. Jayant Jadhav and others, who were accused of violating Section 26(1)(k) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, held that the alleged acquisition of leasehold rights by the spouses of the petitioners before their election as Councillors does not attract disqualification under the said Act.
The case arose when a complaint was filed against the petitioners, alleging that their spouses had succeeded in an auction for leasehold rights on properties constructed by the Public Works Department before the municipal elections. This was perceived as a violation of Section 26(1)(k), which disqualifies individuals having any interest in contracts or employment with the Corporation. However, the court found that the auction occurred in 2020, prior to the petitioners' election as Councillors in 2021, negating the misuse of official position.
Justice Govindaraj emphasized that the benefit derived from the auction did not occur after the petitioners were elected, rendering the disqualification clause inapplicable. The judgment further clarified that proceedings initiated under Section 26(1)(k) cannot morph into proceedings under Section 19 of the Act, which deals with the non-disclosure of assets, without clear notification at the outset. The court upheld the principles of fairness and due process, asserting that proceedings under different statutory provisions must remain distinct.
The petitioners had challenged orders from the Regional Commissioner and the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department, both of which confirmed their disqualification. The High Court's decision overturns these orders, allowing the petitioners to retain their positions as Councillors.
The judgment also highlighted the ongoing independent proceedings under Section 19 related to asset disclosure, which must be adjudicated separately according to the law. This ruling serves as a precedent in emphasizing the importance of procedural clarity and fairness in disqualification cases involving elected representatives.
Bottom Line:
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Disqualification for being chosen as, and for continuing as, a Councillor under Section 26(1)(k) - Alleged acquisition of leasehold rights by spouses prior to election cannot attract disqualification under Section 26(1)(k) as the benefit was not derived after election.
Statutory provision(s): Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Sections 19, 26(1)(k)
