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) 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Komala, W/o G.M. Gurumallappa And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka Department Of Co-Operation And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13663 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 12-06-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Nagesh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, Additional Government, Advocate, Sri. T.L.Kiran Kumar, Advocate

The court reaffirmed that electoral disputes regarding voter eligibility must be resolved under specific statutory provisions post-election, adhering to the finality of prior judgments.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Voting eligibility in election proceedings - Interim orders permitted petitioners voted despite being declared ineligible - Previous ruling established that irregularities in election conduct should be resolved under Section 70(2) of the Act post-result announcement (Paras 1-4).

(B) Jurisdiction - The Court emphasized that finality of prior judgments is crucial; hence, similar applicability to current matter was upheld. (Paras 2, 3).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, declared ineligible voters, were allowed to vote subject to the writ petition's outcome, with their votes kept in a separate ballot box.

Findings of Court:
The writ petition was disposed of with directives for the Returning Officer to announce results, retaining votes, and allowing for disputes to be raised under appropriate provisions.

Issues: The main issue was whether irregularities in voter eligibility could be resolved post-election under specified statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that previous judgments serve as precedents in similar cases and that challenges to electoral eligibility should follow specified legal channels.

Result: Writ Petition is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. permission for ineligible voters to vote under specific conditions. (Para 1)
2. previous ruling establishes ineligibility issues to be resolved post-election. (Para 2 , 3)
3. order for election result announcement and future disputes. (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 came to a categorical conclusion that any irregularity in the conduct of election in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be the proper remedy of 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.

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