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) 526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH 
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Laxminarayan S/o Venkatraman Bhat - Appellant 
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 107823, 107959 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shivanand Malashetti, Tejpal Kamal
For the Respondents: Mala B. Bhute, G.V. Bharamagoudar, Abhilash Hanamannavar

The right to participate in co-operative elections is constitutional and must adhere to statutory procedures; violations may invalidate disqualifications based on process failures.

Headnote:(A) Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 - Writ of mandamus to include names in voters list and conduct elections - Petitioners claimed violation of mandatory procedures in preparing voters list, affecting their voting rights. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Right to form a co-operative society as a constitutional right - Statutory right to contest and vote in elections; disqualification due to non-attendance of meetings not valid if procedures were violated. (Paras 3-4)

(C) Election conducted with petitioners allowed to vote; results to be announced reflecting all votes including those of petitioners, with an opportunity for grievances to be addressed through legal channels. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought inclusion in the eligible voters list and challenged the ineligibility declaration. They contended that election procedures were not properly followed, which led to their disenfranchisement. Respondents denied interference with the election process, stating the final lists were prepared legally.

Findings of Court:
The Court found in favor of the petitioners allowing their participation, agreeing that election results should include their votes, and noted any grievances could be pursued legally post-election.

Issues: The main issues included procedural adherence in voter list preparation and the effect of petitioners' disqualification on their voting rights due to alleged violations of the Act and Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the constitutional right to form societies and statutory voting rights; procedural violations must be addressed to prevent invalid disqualifications. Further, participation after being permitted should lead to inclusion of their votes in the result declarations.

Result: Petitions disposed of; election results to be declared including votes of petitioners.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek inclusion in voters list. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners' membership in societies established. (Para 3)
3. contestation of election process and procedural violations. (Para 4)
4. opposition to interference with election results. (Para 5)
5. acknowledgment of the petitioners' voting participation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
6. court reliance on precedent for electoral processes. (Para 9)
7. final ruling on election result declaration. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

1. Writ Petition No.107959/2024 is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to include the name of the petitioners in the final eligible/borrower voters list and permit them to cast vote in the 5th respondent-Society scheduled to be held on 28.12.2024 and for other consequential orders.

2. Writ Petition No.107823/2024 is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the final ineligible voters list issued by respondent No.4 and mandamus directing respondents to conduct elections to the 7th respondent society scheduled to be held on 28.12.2024.

3. The petitioners are duly admitted members/borrowers members of the 5th and 7th respondent-Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’, for short) in order to combat indebtedness and to empower citizens in the rural sector.

4. The District Election Officer declared the election to the 5th and 7th respondent-Societies pursuant to which calendar of events were issued by the Returning Officer dated 20.11.2024. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Returning Officer as well as the 5th and 7th respondents, respectively in both cases, have not followed the procedure contemplated under the Act in preparation of the draft voters list and in the matter of issuing notices to attend the meeting of the society and not providing information to defaulters of the society. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents conducted the process of election in violation to the mandatory provisions of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES , 1960. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that having violated the provisions of the Act and the Rules, a direction be issued to respondent No.5 and respondent No.7, in the respective case, to include the names of the petitioners in the final voters list. They contend that the right to form a co-operative society is a constitutional right and for the members to contest and cast their vote is a statutory right provided. It is further contended that respondents-Societies have not issues or served the General Body Meeting notice to the petitioners, the date of the meeting and hence they were unable to attend the General Body Meeting. Therefore, non-attendance of the meeting leading to disqualification of the petitioners to vote for the election cannot amount to violation of the Rules and regulations of the Societies. It is further contended that the Societies have disqualified the petitioners for not attending the meeting and also for having been defaulters in the Society. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking direction to include their names in the final eligible voters list for participation in the election scheduled to be conducted by the Societies.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State and other respondents contend that the action of 5th and 7th respondents do not call for interference, as final eligible voters list and non-eligible voters list have been published prior to calendar of events. On these grounds, they seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. This Court vide order dated 27.12.2024 and 24.12.2024 permitted the petitioners to cast their vote based on which the petitioners have cast their vote and same ae kept

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