Judicial jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for election eligibility disputes under cooperative law, requiring resolution through designated authorities.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

i. "Issue a writ of appropriate nature to declare that Section 20(2)(a-iv) & (a-v) the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act is ultra vires the legislative competence and Article 243Z1 and 243Z0 of the constitution of India.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents to conduct the elections to the respondent no 5 society for the term 2025-30 in accordance with the list of members produced herewith as Annexure-A.”

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not press relief No.1 and therefore this writ petition is restricted to considering the entitlement of the petitioners for relief No.2.

2. The petitioners contend that they are all primary societies and members of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.4 had issued a notification notifying the elections to the managing committee of respondent No.5 on 26.06.2025. The petitioners contend that the final eligible voters list was prepared and those who had not attended three general body meetings out of five and those who had not done minimum transaction of Rs.3,00,000/- were not eligible to participate or contest or vote in the elections. The petitioners contend that the election officer had published a list of eligible members, where their names does not appear. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging their exclusion from the democratic process in electing a managing committee for the respondent No.5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have attended three general body meetings and have also done more than Rs.3,00,000/- transactions with the respondent No.5 and therefore, the inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the list of ineligible voters is not just and proper. He also contends that the respondent No.4 - election officer has not followed the due process as contemplated under Rule 13D of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, before including the names of the petitioners in the ineligible voters list.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the question whether the petitioners are eligible or ineligible voters cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contends that the Hon’ble Division Bench following the judgement of Co- ordinate Benches in Mohammad Beary and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (WP No.29271/2023 and connected matters) and Sri.B.Ganganna and others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others - ILR 2024 KAR 1901 have categorically held this and the Division Bench of this Court has reiterated the above position. He contends therefore it is appropriate for the petitioners to be relegated before the authority under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’ for short).

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents.

6. The names of the petitioners were included in the ineligible voters list on the ground that they had either failed to attend three general body meetings out of five or that they had failed to do the minimum transaction expected under the bye- laws. The petitioners have not produced anything to show that they had attended the meetings or done the minimum transactions as prescribed under law and as per the bye-laws of the respondent No.5. Therefore, this Court is handicapped to decide the question whether the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the lis