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) 2979

2025 KHC-D 14649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Smt. Sanyavva, W/o Giriyappa Patted – Petitioner
Versus 
The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary Department Of Co-Operation – Petitioner 
WRIT PETITION NO. 107675 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates Appeared : 
For the Petitioner : Sri. Girish A. Yadawad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri. Ramesh Chigari, Aga, Sri. G.V. Bharamagoudar, Advocate 

Deficiencies in the electoral process, including lack of individual notifications to excluded voters, necessitate counting their votes in election results as per procedural rules.

Headnote:(A) Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Section 70(2) - Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 13-D (2-A) - Election process - Deficiencies in preparation of Final Electoral List and the absence of individual notices to excluded members violate the provisions of the Rules, necessitating the counting of the petitioners' votes in the recent election - The writ petition is thus disposed of directing the Returning Officer to announce the results including the votes cast by the petitioners. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

(B) Election Process - Validity - The preparation of voters' list is integral to the election process, and irregularities cannot stay the election results when results have already been declared. (Paras 12, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contend that specific procedures were not followed regarding the publication of the Draft Eligible Electoral List and individual notices, impacting their voting rights in the election held on 23.04.2022.

Findings of Court:
The court identified deficiencies in the electoral process that violated the rights of the petitioners to be notified and voted.

Issues: Whether the election results should include the votes of excluded members and the adequacy of the procedures followed during the election process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural rules in the election process, affirming the need for individual notices and the inclusion of petitioners' votes.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of directing the Returning Officer to announce the results including the votes of the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. coverage of the issue by previous judgment. (Para 1)
2. direction to announce election results. (Para 2 , 3)

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.8502/2022 C/w. W.P. No.8477/2022, disposed off on 7th June 2022. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:

“8. In the light of these rival submissions, the question for consideration is:

Whether these writ petitions must be disposed of directing the Returning Officer [the fourth respondent and sixth respondents in the respective petitions to announce the results of the elections held on 23.04.2022 including the votes cast by the petitioners.

9. The provisions of Rule 13-D (2-A) of the Rules read as hereunder:

(3) The Election Officer shall take steps for publication of voters list in the following manner, namely:-

(a) for publication of draft eligible electoral list, a list of defaulters, a list of members whose repayment falls due, before the election date clear fifty days;

(b) for calling objections, if any, calling upon the defaulter members to repay the amounts due to the co-operative societies on or before thirty clear days prior to the date of election;

(c) the scrutiny and verification of the voters list after payment by defaulters etc., clear twenty days before the ate of election.

(d) for publication of final eligible voters list before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election.

The underlining is by this Court.

10. These provisions do not leave any room for doubt that an excluded member, with the publication of the Draft Eligible Electoral List, must have an opportunity by way of an individual notice to file objections on exclusion from the Electoral List. It must be shown that the concerned Chief Executive has prepared and sent notice to the affected members. The Public Notice dated 8.11.20211

1This Public Notice reads as follows:

does not meet these requirements. In fact, it is admitted on behalf of the respondents that there are deficiencies in the preparation of the Final Electoral Roll after the publication of the Draft Eligible Electoral List, and the petitioners have not been issued with individual notices.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others supra has held as follows:

‘7. A perusal of the Rules discloses that the preparation of provisional list of voters, filing of objection against the provisional list of voters, consideration of the objection by the Collector and finalising the list of voters, all occur in the Rules which cover the entire process of the election. The Rules framed for election of specified societies are complete code in itself providing for the entire

process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of result of the election. In view of the scheme of the Act and Rules, the preparation of voters' list must be held to be part of the election process for constituting managing committee of a specified society.

12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll is being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the managing committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of returned candidate, if a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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