SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Krishna, S/o Boraiah And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka By Its Principal Secretary To Government Department Of Co-Operation And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15360 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 04-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. T Dadakhalandar., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Yogesh D. Naik., Aga, Sri. T.L. Kiran Kumar., Advocate, Sri. B. Ravindra Prasad., Advocate

Disputes regarding eligibility in cooperative society elections must follow procedural mandates of Section 70(2) post-results, not under Article 226.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - The petitioners were permitted to vote despite being deemed ineligible, subject to the writ petition outcome. Previous ruling established irregular election conduct disputes must follow Section 70(2) procedures post-results. (Paras 2-4)

(B) The court concluded that votes should be counted and results announced, but no opinion was expressed on the merits of any potential disputes. (Paras 2-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested their election eligibility and were initially allowed to vote, with their votes stored separately until results were announced.

Findings of Court:
The writ petition is disposed of, directing the Returning Officer to announce results within seven days.

Issues: Whether election disputes arising from eligibility issues should proceed under Article 226 or Section 70(2).

Ratio Decidendi: Irregular election conduct disputes must be addressed through statutory provisions post-election results; the court stayed neutral on the merits of potential disputes.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. eligibility of petitioners to vote pending litigation. (Para 1)
2. remedies for electoral disputes under karnataka law. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's directive on election results announcement. (Para 4)

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. This Court by way of various interim orders had permitted the petitioners who were declared to be ineligible voters to cast their vote in the elections of the Society, subject to the result of the writ petition and that the votes cast by the petitioners shall be kept in separate ballot boxes.

2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.S.Raju vs. State of Karnataka & others, [W.P.No.8502/2022 dated 7.6.2022] has after considering the matter in detail come to a categorical conclusion that any irregularity in the conduct of election a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be the proper remedy any dispute as regards the eligibility or ineligibility and the deficiencies in finalization of final electoral list, could only be considered in a dispute raised as regard the election under Section 70 (2) of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT , 1959 after the announcement of the results by counting even the votes cast by the petitioners.

3. The said judgment not having been challenged and having attained finality, the fact being more or less similar would equally apply to the present matter.

4. In that view of the matter, I pass the following :

ORDER

i. The Writ Petition is disposed of

ii. The Returning Officer is directed to announce the result within seven days of the receipt of a copy of this order by taking into account the votes cast by the petitioners in the above matter.

iii. In the event of any proceeding being filed in relation to the results of the election under Section 70 (2) of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT , 1959, all the contentions raised herein and any that may be raised are left open for consideration in accordance with the applicable law, this court has not expressed any opinion on those issues.

iv. The votes cast by the respective petitioners which had been directed to be kept in separate box shall continue to be retained in a separate box until the disposal of the dispute if any raised within the time frame prescribed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top