A candidate can submit only one nomination for a constituency under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, and improper rejection of a nomination does not warrant interference unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

CAV ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned unnumbered and undated endorsement issued by the Respondent No.4 Returning officer and consequently allow/permit the petitioner to contest in the upcoming elections in the reserved category for backward classes schedule on 09-03-2025 (copy of the impugned endorsement and nomination produced at Annexure-A).

ii) Issue any other writ or order and grant such other further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

iii) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ and quash the impugned undated and un-numbered publication of declaration of result issued by the Respondent No.4 wherein declaring the result of the backward category-A, consequently direct the Respondent bank to re- do a fresh election for the Board of Directors.

2. The Petitioner is a member of Respondent No. 3- Vittal Grameena Sahakari Bank Limited, a primary society, registered under the Karnataka Co-op Societies Act, 1959 [‘KCS Act’ for short]. Respondent No. 4, Returning Officer, had issued a calendar of events for the five-year term of the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.3-Bank. The elections were to be scheduled on 09.03.2025. The petitioner being interested in contesting election submitted two sets of nomination papers on 01.03.2025, one under the General category and another under the Backward community category.

Both the nomination papers were identified and endorsed by one Shi. Tammayya Gowda P., member of the Respondent-Bank.

3. On 02.03.2025 the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondent No.4-Returning Officer that he would be withdrawing his nomination under the General category and requesting the Returning Officer to consider his nomination under the OBC reserved category. It is alleged that initially the Returning Officer did not acknowledge the receipt of the representation by affixing a seal, but on a prolonged protest therefafter he received the said request by affixing a signature. Subsequent thereto, it is contended that the Returning Officer had issued an unnumbered, undated endorsement, rejecting the nomination of the petitioner for the OBC category. It is aggrieved by the endorsement rejecting the nomination filed by the petitioner for the Backward category-A that the petitioner had approached this court.

4. The above matter having been taken up for hearing on 06.03.2025, notice was directed to be issued to the Respondents. Counsel for Respondent No.4 was also directed to verify the timings of the scrutiny of the nomination papers in the morning session and the matter was passed over. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up in the afternoon session, the Counsel for Respondent No.3 had submitted that the results had already been announced and the sole candidate in OBC Category-A had been declared elected unopposed by producing the result /declaration thereof.

5. It is in that view of the matter that an amendment application came to be filed on 10.03.2025 following the announcement of the result. Thus, after the amendment, the Petitioner is challenging both the rejection of his nomination, as also the declaration of the result.

6. Sri. R. Subramanya, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that,

6.1. The rejection made of the nomination papers submitted by the Petitioner was solely on the ground that there were two nominations endorsed by the very same member, namely Sri. Thammayya Gowda. His submission is that in actuality, though there are two nomination papers, both the nomination papers are of the p