SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37196

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G UMA
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 33836/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 33836 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)

BETWEEN:

SINGANAYAKANAHALLI RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560064 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/DELEGATE MS. VANISHREE VISHWANATH THE SOCIETY IS REGISTER UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE ACT 1960 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN .G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Location: High DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION Court of Karnataka M S BUILDINGS DR. BR AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. STATE CO-OPERATION ELECTION AUTHORITY, 3RD FLOOR, TTMC 'A'

BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

REPRESENTED BY ITS ELECTION COMMISSION

3. BANGALORE URBAN, BANGALORE RURAL AND BANGALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

BENGALURU 560 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU DIVISION, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH .D. NAIK, AGA R1 & 4 SRI. A. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NATARAJ BABU K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE VOTERS LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK, DATED 17.10.2025 WHEREIN, THE PETITIONER SANGHA HAS BEEN DECLARED AS AN INELIGIBLE VOTER AT SL.NO.5 OF THE BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO DECLARE THE PETITIONER SANGHA AS AN ELIGIBLE VOTER, ENTITLED TO VOTE AND CONTEST IN THE ELECTIONS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 07.12.2025.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner-Society has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to set aside the ineligible voters list published by respondent No.3-Bank dated 17.10.2025, produced as per Annexure-A, declaring that the petitioner - Society is ineligible to vote, and to issue writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner - Society to contest and vote in the election that is scheduled to be held on 07.12.2025.

2. Heard Sri. D.R.Ravishnakar, learned senior advocate for Sri Arun G., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 4 and Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel for Sri. Nataraj Babu K., learned counsel for respondent No.3.

Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that only on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the minimum service as per Byelaw No.4(8)(vi), it has been disqualified from either contesting or voting in the election. While drawing the attention of the Court to Bye-laws produced as per Annexure-E, he contended that the amendment disqualifying the petitioner - Society either to contest or vote in the election was brought with effect from 21.09.2022. Further the Bye-law was approved by the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies as per Annexure-F and the amendment came into force with effect from 03.12.2022. Therefore, the petitioner - Society is having two more years to comply with the requirements and in the meantime, Society cannot be held to be ineligible either to contest or to vote in the election on such ground.

4. Learned senior advocate further contended that disqualification from voting as provided under Section 17 of KCS Act is entirely different from disqualification from membership under Section 20(2) of KCS Act. While drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-R1, learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that the said amendment which w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top