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) 137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Smt Chikkathayamma, W/o Chowda @ Muga and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Department of Co Operation and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17606 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 04-07-2025

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

Electoral disputes regarding voter eligibility must be resolved under statutory provisions, specifically Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, rather than Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - The court affirmed prior judgment stating any irregularity in election conduct should be addressed under Section 70(2) of the Act after results announcement - Interim orders allowed ineligible voters to cast votes, with the condition that these votes are kept separate. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Court held that disputes relating to eligibility should not be pursued under Article 226, reinforcing the principle that electoral disputes must follow specific statutory procedures.

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, declared ineligible voters, were allowed to vote in society elections under interim court orders, with votes to be separated.

Findings of Court:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions for timely results and retention of separate ballots until disputes are resolved.

Issues: The central issue was whether irregularities in voter eligibility should be adjudicated under Article 226 or related provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the appropriate course for eligibility disputes lies within statutory frameworks, thus maintaining judicial restraint in electoral matters.

Result: The writ petition is disposed of with specific orders for action on the voters' results.

Table of Content
1. interim orders allowing petitioners to vote (Para 1)
2. irregularity in election conduct addressed under section 70(2) (Para 2 , 3)
3. writ petition disposed with specific orders to returning officer (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