Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA
Subramanya, S/O H Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Principal Secretary To Government, Department Of Co-Operation – Respondent
ORDER :
M.G. UMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5.
2. The petitioners are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 4th respondent society in treating the petitioners as ineligible to vote in the election scheduled to be held on 25.10.2025 to the Board of 4th respondent society as bad and illegal; that it is not in conformity with sub-Rule (2-A) of Rule 13-D of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES ; and to direct respondent No.4 to include their names in the eligible voters' list and permit them to cast votes in the election that was scheduled to be held on 25.10.2025, produced as per Annexure-A.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, as per the interim order dated 24.10.2025, the petitioners were permitted to cast their votes in the election that was held on 25.10.2025 subject to final outcome of the petition. The petitioners have not raised dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short, 'the KCS Act'). before the appropriate authority and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. Learned c
Judicial review is limited when alternative statutory remedies are available; petitioners permitted to vote but advised to pursue formal dispute under applicable law.
Court upheld the necessity for parties to first utilize available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures, allowing petitioners to invoke their rights under Section 70 of the KCS Act before seeking further judicial intervention.
Court emphasized the necessity to pursue alternative remedies under Section 70 of the KCS Act before seeking judicial intervention.
Courts will not entertain petitions if alternative remedies are available, emphasizing the need to exhaust such remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
The court upheld that petitioners must utilize the alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, dismissing the writ petition challenging the ineligible voters list....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention is unwarranted when an alternative statutory remedy is available, specifically under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
Writ petitions cannot be entertained when statutory remedies are available; alternative dispute mechanisms must be pursued.
A writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative remedy exists under applicable statutes, directing parties to pursue such remedies first.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
