IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.203504 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)

BETWEEN:

VINODKUMAR RATNAKAR S/O SHIVAPPA RATNAKAR, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER-GRADE-II, GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, TORAVI LT-2, TQ AND DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586101.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K M GHATE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RETURNING OFFICER, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ELECTION, BEGALURU – 560027.

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER SARAKARI MOUKARARA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITH, MAHAVEER ROAD, VIJAYAPUR – 586101.

3. THE RETURNING OFFICER AND VOTER LIST VERIFICATION AUTHORITY OF VIJAYPUR, SARAKARI NOUKARARA SAHAKRA BANK NIYAMITH, VIJAYAPUR–585106. 4. MR ARJUN GANGU LAMANI S/O GANGU LAMANI, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BARATAGI TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR–586119.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SAHUKAR, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI VIRANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, ADV FOR R2;

SRI AMRESH S ROJA, ADV FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) WRIT OF MANDAMUS / ORDER / DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 NOT TO ENTERTAIN THE NOMINATION IF ANY TO BE FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN THE ELECTION PROCESS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 2ND RESPONDENT BANK, IN VIEW OF THE DISQUALIFICATION SUFFERED BY T HE FOURTH RESPONDENT, IN VIEW OF THE BY LAWS AND RULES AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to entertain the nomination, if any, filed by the respondent No.4 in the election to the Board of Directors of respondent No.2, in view of his disqualification.

2. The petitioner contends that he and respondent No.4 are the members of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 proposed to hold the election to the Board of Directors of respondent No.2 and appointed respondent No.3 as the Returning Officer to prepare voters list and to conduct the election as per calendar of events. The petitioner contends that respondent No.4 was serving as an Assistant Teacher and was also running a lottery in the name of his wife and cheated many teachers. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him, where he was held guilty of all the charges. He contends that respondent No.4 challenged the order of disciplinary authority before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in application Nos.20641 and 20642/2021 and the said applications were allowed in part and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was modified and a lesser punishment was imposed. It is therefore contended that as per the bye-laws of respondent No.2, respondent No.4 has incurred disqualification and therefore cannot continue as a member of respondent No.2. He contended that respondent No.4 is therefore not entitled to contest the election to the Board of Directors. Nonetheless, respondent No.4 had submitted his nomination and respondent No.3 was in the process of accepting it. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 not to entertain the nomination of respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bye-laws of respondent No.2 provide that a member would be disqualified, if he is convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude. He submits that the order of disciplinary authority, which was later modified by the KAT was akin to a conviction of respondent No.4 and therefore, respondent No.4 suffered disqualification. Therefore, he submits that respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to file his nomination.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment