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) 2311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.UMA, J.
 
Sandeep H.K., S/o. H.V. Krishna Murthy – Petitioner 
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation – Respondent 
WRIT PETITION NO. 2043 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2551 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) WRIT PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M), WRIT PETITION NO. 3170 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M), WRIT PETITION NO. 3536 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 24-11-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, AGA, Sri. A. Devaraj, Advocate, Sri. Nishanth A.V., Advocate, Sri. Akash Patil, Advocate.

Eligibility disputes regarding voters must utilize statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention as per the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act - Section 70 - Writ petitions filed regarding the ineligible voters list and permission to contest/vote in upcoming elections; petitioners allowed to cast votes temporarily, with votes kept separately - Court emphasizes the need to utilize the statutory remedy under Section 70 instead of bypassing it. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Elections - Eligibility and voting rights - Petitioners contesting their status as ineligible voters must follow the statutory procedures for resolution through the Registrar’s office as provided by law. (Para 8)

(C) Interim Orders - The returning officer permitted temporary voting for petitioners while retaining the results subject to court’s further orders to ensure fairness. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought inclusion in the eligible voters list to vote in elections scheduled for 09.02.2025, disputing their designation as ineligible voters.

Findings of Court:
Court mandates use of statutory remedy provided under Section 70 before proceeding with petitions.

Issues: The core issue is about the legitimacy of the ineligible voters list and the ability of petitioners to vote in the upcoming elections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disputes regarding voter eligibility must be handled through established statutory channels as per Section 70.

Result: Petitions disposed off with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek inclusion in eligible voters list. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal representation and arguments presented. (Para 6)
3. court orders interim voting and highlights statutory remedies. (Para 7 , 8)
4. statutory remedy under section 70 of kcs act to be pursued. (Para 9)
5. results to be announced with specific voting conditions. (Para 10)

ORDER :

M.G.UMA, J.

In W.P.No.2043/2025, the petitioners have sought for quashing the ineligible voters list dated 21.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4 produced as per Annexure - A and also direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to include their names in the eligible voters list, permit them to contest and vote in the election to the Committee of management of respondent No.4, that was scheduled on 09.02.2025.

2. In W.P.No.2551/2025, the petitioners have sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to include the names of the petitioners in the eligible voters list, who are now in the ineligible voters list as per Annexure -A and permit them to cast their votes in the elections to respondent No.5 that was scheduled on 09.02.2025.

3. In W.P.No.2833/ 2025, the petitioners have sought for quashing the ineligible voters list dated 21.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4 produced as per Annexure - A and also direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to include their names in the eligible voters list, permit them to vote in the election to the Committee of management of respondent No.4, that was scheduled on 09.02.2025.

4. In W.P.No.3170/2025, the petitioners have sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to include the names of the petitioners in the eligible voters list and permit the petitioners to vote in the elections to respondent No.4 that was scheduled on 09.02.2025.

5. In W.P.No.3536/2025, the petitioners have sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to 5 to include the name of the petitioners in the eligible voters list, who are now in the ineligible voters list as per Annexure A and permit the petitioners to vote in the elections to respondent No.5, that was scheduled on 09.02.2025.

6. Heard Sri Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2043/2025 and 2833 of 2025, Sri M R Rajgopal, learned senior advocate for Sri Vinaya Keerthi M, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2551/2025 and 3536/2025, Sri Rahul S Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3170/2025, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents - State, Sri A Devaraj, learned standing counsel for Election Authority, Sri A V Nishanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.Nos.2043/2025, 2551/2025 and 2833/2025 respectively, Sri Akash Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10 in W.P.Nos.2043/2025, 3170/2025, Sri Shivaram R Bhat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10 in W.P.Nos.2551/2025 and 2833/2025 and Sri Varun J Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10 in W.P.Nos.3536/2025. Perused the materials on record.

7. As per the interim order, the Returning Officer was directed to permit the petitioners to cast vote in the election that was scheduled on 09.02.2025 and keep the vote cast by the petitioners separately in a sealed cover, which shall be subject to the further orders by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioners have already cast their votes in the election.

8. The dispute regarding the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the ineligible voters list could be raised by the petitioners before the Registrar invoking Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (for short 'the KCS Act'). Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to bypass the statutory remedy available under Section 70 of the KCS Act and to entertain these petitions.

9. Hence, the petitions are disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to invoke Section 70 of the KCS Act and raise the dispute in accordance with law, if they are advised to do so.

10. The Returning Officer is directed to anno

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