'Benefit Derived Prior To Election': Karnataka High Court Overturns Disqualification Of Councillors On Ground Of Wives Winning Land Auction

The Karnataka High Court overturned the disqualification of two Belagavi Municipal Corporation Councillors who were disqualified on the ground that they had failed to disclose that their wives had succeeded in an auction of leasehold rights in respect of properties constructed by Public Works Department.

In doing so the court observed that the leasehold auction had happened prior to when the petitioners were elected as Councillors, and thus the alleged benefit was not derived after the petitioners were elected as Councillors.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj referred to Section 26(1)(k) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act which indicates that the provision deals with disqualification for being chosen as, as well as for continuing as, a Councillor.

The court noted that the disqualification is attracted if the 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. Such disqualification may arise either prior to the election or even after the election and can be examined upon a complaint filed in that regard.

"In the present case, the allegation is that the spouses of the petitioners derived a benefit in the form of leasehold rights in respect of constructions put up by the Public Works Department. However, 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 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".

A complaint was filed with Regional Commissioner Belagavi, alleging that the petitioners had violated Section 26(1)(k) of the Act on the ground that their wives had succeeded in an auction of leasehold rights in respect of properties constructed by the Public Works Department.

Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, and Respondent No.2–Regional Commissioner on 10.02.2025, upheld the complaint holding that the petitioners stood disqualified under Section 26(1)(k). Aggrieved the petitioners moved an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. The Principal Secretary, by order dated 26.06.2025, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Regional Commissioner. Against this the petitioners moved the high court.

The petitioners argued that the participation in the auction by the wives of the petitioners was prior to the petitioners being elected Councillors of Belagavi Municipal Corporation. It was contended that the auction was conducted in 2020, whereas the municipal elections were held in 2021, and therefore Section 26(1)(k) would not be attracted.

The State argued that Principal Secretary had verified and found that the leasehold rights secured by the wives of the petitioners through the land auction had not been disclosed in the returns filed under Section 19(2) of the KMC Act. Despite being put to notice during the enquiry, the petitioners did not dispute the fact that such leasehold rights were not disclosed either in their declaration of assets or in the declaration of assets of their respective spouses.

The plea was allowed and the disqualification was set aside.

Case title: SHRI. JAYANT JADHAV ANR. v/s PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & OTHERS

WRIT PETITION NO. 19069 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

Click Here To Read/Download Order