1. Challenge to the rejection of nomination papers in a cooperative society election and subsequent writ proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 332
1998(9) Supreme 175
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Umesh Shivappa Ambi & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Angadi Shekara Basappa & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21938 of 1997)
Decided on 6-3-1998
Important Point
Under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, challenge to election of directors to Cooperative Society/Bank has to be raised before the Registrar and as such writ petition under Article 226 cannot be maintained.
Headnote:Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959-Section 70-Cooperative Society-Election of directors-Challenge to-Writ petition-Not maintainable-Once election is over aggrieved candidate has to pursue his remedy in accordance with provisions of law-Dispute required to be referred to Registrar by raising a dispute before him.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 versus the statutory remedy provided under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with elections under Article 226 when an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available. (Para 4 )
4. Election disputes in cooperative societies must be referred to the Registrar under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; Division Bench order set aside and Single Judge's order restored. (Para 5 )
6. Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable for challenging election disputes in a cooperative society?
The court will not ordinarily interfere under Article 226 once an election is over if an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy is available under the law. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal remedy for election disputes under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959?
Under Section 70(2)(c), any dispute arising in connection with the election of society officials must be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before them. (Para 4 )
Order
Leave granted.
2. Election for 11 directors of Respondent 3 Cooperative Bank (sic Society) for the years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 was conducted. The election results were declared on 23.9.1997. Since there was no contest, the appellants who were the candidates, were declared elected. The first respondent had also filed his nomination paper which was earlier rejected. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a writ-petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the rejection of his nomination paper.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the proper remedy for the first respondent was to file an election petition under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. In appeal, however, the Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has held that the nomination of the first respondent was wrongly rejected. It has further directed that a fresh calender of events be published for holding an election to the posts of 11 Directors of the respondent Cooperative Society.
4. It is now well settled that once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and this (sic High) Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226 of the Constitution. (See in this connection para 3 in K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain1. The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under Section 70 (2)(c) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary Treasure or member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law.
5. This was, therefore, not a fit case for intervention under Article 226. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge is restored. The period of 6 months prescribed in the order of the learned Single Judge for the decision of the Registrar will run from the date of the raising of the dispute before him. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
(C.R.)
**********
