IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA
Ambekallu P. Kushallappa, S/O Padmaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation – Respondent
ORDER :
M G UMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3.
2. The petitioners are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents No.2 to 5 to include their names in the eligible voters' list of respondent No.4 society and permit them to contest and cast votes in the election that was scheduled to be held on 26.10.2025, produced as per Annexure-C.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, as per the interim order dated 24.10.2025, the petitioners were permitted to cast votes in the election that was held on 26.10.2025 subject to final outcome of the petition. It is also ordered that the petitioners shall not claim any equities in this regard. The petitioners have not raised dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short, 'the KCS Act') before the appropriate authority and therefore, he prays for passing appropriate orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has not raised dispute under Section 70 of the KCS Act in view of the urgency in the matter.
5. Now the purpose of the petitioners is served and they were permitted
Court upheld the necessity for parties to first utilize available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
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.
Court emphasized the necessity to pursue alternative remedies under Section 70 of the KCS Act before seeking judicial intervention.
Judicial review is limited when alternative statutory remedies are available; petitioners permitted to vote but advised to pursue formal dispute under applicable law.
Courts will not entertain petitions if alternative remedies are available, emphasizing the need to exhaust such remedies before seeking 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.
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.
Alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction, reinforcing legislative provisions in the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.