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) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Sri. Srinivas, S/o Late Karishetty and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Department of Co-Operative And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17727 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 04-07-2025

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

Disputes over eligibility of voters in co-operative society elections must be resolved under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 post-election results, not through writ petitions under Article 226.

Headnote:(A) KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 - Section 70(2) - Writ petition addressing eligibility of voters in Society election - Previous judgment establishes that disputes over voter eligibility should be resolved under the Act post-election results - Court upholds this principle. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners initially declared ineligible to vote were allowed to cast their votes under interim orders, with votes kept separate pending the writ petition outcome.

Findings of Court:
Writ petition disposed of with the Returning Officer directed to announce results within seven days, considering votes cast by the petitioners.

Issues: The issue is whether the eligibility of voters could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution or if the proper remedy lies under Section 70(2) of the Act post-result announcement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes regarding electoral eligibility should be governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, indicating that any such challenges should wait until after results are declared.

Result: The writ petition is disposed of as per the above orders.

Table of Content
1. interim order on ineligible voters casting votes (Para 1)
2. prior ruling impacts current election dispute (Para 2 , 3)
3. procedures for election results and dispute handling (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 timeframe 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