Back
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Govindegowda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State as well as the respondent/Society.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to include the names of the petitioners in the final eligible voters' list and permit the petitioners to vote in the election to the board of respondent No.5 - society which was scheduled on 07.01.2024.
3. This Court by way of interim order permitted the petitioners to cast vote in the said election. However, the result of the election was withheld.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the mandatory requirements of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 have not been followed while preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list. Thus, it is urged that the petitioners should be treated as eligible voters' and their votes need to be counted as valid votes.
5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent - Society would fairly submit that the Society has not followed the mandatory requirements of the aforementioned Rule.
6. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar cir
The court ruled that procedural non-compliance does not automatically validate disqualified votes, and eligibility must be determined in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.
Procedural non-compliance in election eligibility does not cure disqualification; eligibility disputes must be resolved under the relevant provisions of the Act.
The court affirmed the right to vote in co-operative society elections despite non-compliance with eligibility rules, allowing votes to be counted while keeping eligibility disputes open for future r....
The court held that non-attendance at meetings due to COVID-19 restrictions should not disqualify members from voting, affirming that disputes about eligibility typically fall under statutory provisi....
Compliance with election procedures under statutory rules is essential, and eligibility disputes must be resolved independently of interim orders.
Judicial review is limited when alternative statutory remedies are available; petitioners permitted to vote but advised to pursue formal dispute under applicable law.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention is unwarranted when an alternative statutory remedy is available, specifically under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
Courts will not entertain petitions if alternative remedies are available, emphasizing the need to exhaust such remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
Court emphasized the necessity to pursue alternative remedies under Section 70 of the KCS Act before seeking judicial intervention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
