Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. Uma, J.
Mr Sampath Kumar N.L, S/o Lakshminarayana NS – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Department Of Co Operation - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32072 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Decided On : 03-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility of petitioners to vote in election (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. alternatives available under kcs act (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. disposal of petition and directions for election results (Para 5) |
ORDER :
M.G. UMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 4.
2. The petitioners are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents No.2 to 4 to include their names in the eligible voters' list as per Annexure-A and permit them to cast votes in the election that was scheduled to be held on 26.10.2025.
3. As per the interim order passed by this Court dated 25.10.2025, the petitioners were permitted to cast votes in the election subject to the final outcome of the petition. It is also ordered that the petitioners shall not claim any equities in this regard. Accordingly, the petitioners are said to have cast votes in the election that was held on 26.10.2025.
4. Since the petitioners are challenging Annexure-A, they will have the alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, (for short, 'the KCS Act') before the appropriate authority raising dispute. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition.
5. Hence, the petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise dispute under Section 70 of the KCS Act, if they are advised to do so, within a period ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
The Returning Officer-respondent No.4 is directed to declare the election result without counting the votes cast by the petitioners.
Courts will not entertain petitions if alternative remedies are available, emphasizing the need to exhaust such remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
Court emphasized the necessity to pursue alternative remedies under Section 70 of the KCS Act before seeking judicial intervention.
Court upheld the necessity for parties to first utilize available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
The court upheld that petitioners must utilize the alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, dismissing the writ petition challenging the ineligible voters list....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention is unwarranted when an alternative statutory remedy is available, specifically under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures, allowing petitioners to invoke their rights under Section 70 of the KCS Act before seeking further judicial intervention.
A writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative remedy exists under applicable statutes, directing parties to pursue such remedies first.
Writ petitions cannot be entertained when statutory remedies are available; alternative dispute mechanisms must be pursued.
Judicial review is limited when alternative statutory remedies are available; petitioners permitted to vote but advised to pursue formal dispute under applicable law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
