Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
R.NATARAJ, J
SHARANABASAPPA S/O BASAVANTRAO PATIL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.200278 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SRI. A. M. NAGRAL
For the Respondents: SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHAPANDE, SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP
The Returning Officer cannot disqualify a candidate without an official order confirming disqualification under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 17(1)(d), 17(3) - Disqualification for membership - Petitioner contested the cancellation of his election as Director on the grounds of the disqualification of the opposing candidate who was deemed a member of two societies. The court reiterated that an automatic disqualification only occurs after a specific order under Section 17(3) is issued before a Returning Officer can deny a candidacy. The Returning Officer lacked authority to independently classify someone as disqualified. (Paras 2, 10)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that intervening in decisions made regarding membership and candidacy should be reserved for statutory authorities, with the judiciary exercising restraint unless absolutely necessary. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, previously elected as Director, faced cancellation of his position due to the claim that the opposing candidate was a member of two co-operative societies, improperly disqualifying him based on Section 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for the earlier disqualification made by the Returning Officer, as the opposing candidate had evidently ceased membership of one society well before the election. Orders confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal were upheld.
Issues: The main question was whether the nomination of the opposing candidate was valid under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, given the circumstances surrounding his membership status.
Ratio Decidendi: The Returning Officer overstepped his jurisdiction by rejecting the nomination based on a disqualification that hadn't been officially established, thereby emphasizing the necessity for a proper statutory process before determining eligibility.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges election cancellation. (Para 2) |
| 2. disqualification based on conflicting memberships. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. contested interpretation of membership status. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ petition ultimately dismissed. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 5. court affirms authority limits of returning officer. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.JRR/V-4/Section-70/Dispute No.73/2020-21 dated 05.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 canceling the election of the petitioner to the post of Director of the respondent No.4 and the consequent order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.57/2024 by which the order of the respondent No.2 was confirmed.
2. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 submitted their nominations at the election to the post of Director of the respondent No.4. At the stage of scrutiny of nominations, the petitioner objected against acceptance of nomination of the respondent No.5, consequent to which the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of respondent No.5 on the ground that the respondent No.5 was a member of two co-operative societies and had thus incurred the disqualification as contained in Section 17 (1) (d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1959’]. The respondent No.5 challenged the said order of disqualification as well as the election of the petitioner before respondent No.2 in a statutory appeal. The respondent No.2, after considering the material on record, was satisfied that the respondent No.5 was not a member of two co-operative societies of the same kind as on the date of election to the post of Director of respondent No.4 was declared. It also held that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to disqualify the respondent No.5 unless an appropriate order was passed under Section 17 (3) of the Act of 1959. Consequently, he allowed the appeal and set aside the election of the petitioner. This was then challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after verifying the records, dismissed the appeal in terms of an order dated 21.01.2025. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 cannot be a member of more than one co-operative society carrying on business of the same kind. He submits that the respondent No.5 was not only a member of PKPS, Kavalga but also a member of PKPS, Kumsi and therefore, he had incurred the disqualification under Section 17 (1)(d) of the Act of 1959 which was also a disqualification under Section 29C(h) of the Act of 1959. He also contended that the Returning Officer is bound to scrutinize the nominations in the manner provided under Rule 14-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies, Rules, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1960’] of which the relevant is Rule 14-B (2), which reads as follows:
“14-B. Scrutiny of Nominations.-(1) ---
(2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objections or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds, namely.-
(i) that the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified for being elected as a director of the board/representative under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws;
(ii) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine:
Provided that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer or of any other particulars in regard to the candidate or his proposer as entered in the electoral roll (list of the members/representatives/delegates) if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is established:
Provid
