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) 149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Sri. Balaram N., S/o. Late P. Narayanaswamy and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, By Its Principal Secretary To Government, department of co-operation. Government of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8274 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 03-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. T. Dadakhalandar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. Yogesh D. Naik., AGA, Sri. T.L. Kiran Kumar., Sri. Saravana S., Adv.

Election irregularities must be addressed under the specific provisions of the relevant statute rather than through Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 226; Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70(2) - Election disputes - Petitioners, initially declared ineligible voters, permitted to vote subject to the outcome of the writ petition - Previous judgment from a Coordinate Bench established that litigation regarding election irregularities should proceed under the relevant act rather than Article 226 - Previous ruling not challenged, applicable to this case. (Paras 1-4)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contested their eligibility to vote in society elections. Irregularities in electoral list finalization prompted legal action, but prior precedent guided the court’s approach.

Findings of Court:
The court disposed the writ petition, allowing the Returning Officer to announce results while retaining election votes pending further disputes.

Issues: Proper procedures for contesting voter eligibility and conduct of elections per relevant statutes versus Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that election disputes should adhere to statutory provisions without resorting prematurely to constitutional remedies.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. eligibility of petitioners to vote (Para 1)
2. proper remedy for election disputes under law (Para 2 , 3)
3. order for counting and retaining votes (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