Court upheld exclusion from voters' list due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, confirming petitioners must pursue remedies under the Act instead of seeking writ relief.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

1. Petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the final voters’ list published by respondent No.5 and to direct the respondents to publish a final list of eligible non- borrower members by including their names in the list of voters for the elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5 scheduled on 04.01.2026.

2. The petitioners contend that they are members of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 proposed to conduct elections to its Managing Committee and, for that purpose, initiated the process of preparation of the eligible and ineligible voters’ lists in accordance with Rule 13-D of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their names were not included in the list of eligible non-borrower members on the ground that they had failed to attend four consecutive general body meetings of respondent No.5 and had also failed to avail the minimum facilities and conduct the minimum transactions as prescribed under Section 20(2)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short, ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by their exclusion from the list of eligible voters, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the voters’ list notified for the said elections.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of 185 non-borrower members, only 128 members have been held eligible to participate in the elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5. He contends that the petitioners were not informed of the Annual General Body Meetings and, therefore, could not attend the same. He further submits that the petitioners have availed the minimum services from respondent No.5 and have also conducted the minimum transactions as prescribed under Section 20(2)(d) of the Act.

5. Accordingly, he seeks a direction to the respondents to consider inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the final voters’ list.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 70 of the Act, 1959. It is contended that several Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have consistently held that where names of members are excluded from the voters’ list on the grounds enumerated under Section 20(2) of the Act, the aggrieved persons must approach the appropriate statutory authority, and this Court ought not to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Hence, she submits that no indulgence is warranted in the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the petitioners have failed to attend four consecutive general body meetings and have also failed to carry out the minimum transactions as required under law. Therefore, they are not entitled to participate in the elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5. He further submits that if the petitioners claim that they were not notified of the Annual General Body Meetings, the same ought to have been challenged before the competent authority under Section 70 of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.27139 of 2024 and connected matters. He submits that under Rule 13-D, the role of respondent No.3 is confined to preparing the lists of eligible and ineligible voters by following the due procedure prescribed therein.

8. The petitioners claim to be members of respondent No.5. Being members, they are expected to attend the Annual General Body Meetings conducted by the society. Though the petitioners contend that they were not notified of four consecutive meetings, they have not produced any material to demonstra