Karnataka High Court
Sri Chittaranjana N S D vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16111
WP No. 6632 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
®
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 6632 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI CHITTARANJANA N S D
C/O LATE SHIVAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO 6-12
NEKKILAR HOUSE
VITTALA KASABA VILLAGE
VITTAL
D K DISTRICT 574243
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE.E., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed THROUGH THE SECRETARY
by SHWETHA DEPARTEMENT OF CO OPERATION
RAGHAVENDRA ROOM NO 610, 6TH FLOOR
Location: HIGH MS BUILIDNG
COURT OF BENGALURU 560001
KARNATAKA
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
MYSORE REGION
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING
OPP CORPORATION OFFICE
NEW SAYYAJIO RAO ROAD
MYSURU 570024
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
VITTAL GRAMEENA SAHAKARI BANK LTD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16111
WP No. 6632 of 2025
VITTALA
BANTWAL TALUK
D K DISTRICT 574243
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER
VITTAL GRAMEENA SAHAKARI BANK LTD
VITTLA
BANTWALA TALUK
D K DISTRICT 574243
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 CONSEQUENLTY ALLOW/PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST IN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS IN THE RESERVED CATEGORY FOR BACKWARD CLASSES SCHEDULED ON 09.03.2025 (COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AND NOMINATION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 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 -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 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. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 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.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025
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- NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 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 petitioner, one for the General category and the other for the OBC Category-A, both of which have been endorsed by Sri. Thammayya Gowda, Thus, in effect, Thammayya Gowda has endorsed only one candidate and not two candidates. As such, rejection of the nomination is not correct.
6.2. While the matter was pending, the results have been declared in respect of backward OBC category-A. If at all the petition, as filed, was considered and in the event of the petitioner succeeding, his nomination paper for OBC category-A would have been accepted. The -7- NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 Petitioner having withdrawn his nomination for General category, the Petitioner could not have been shown to have contested in the General category as done by the Respondents. The Petitioner has not participated insofar as the said nomination in the General category. 6.3. The Respondents have with a malafide motive and intention, rejected the OBC category-A application submitted by the Petitioner to facilitate the announcement of results announcing the sole candidate in that category to be elected unopposed. He therefore submits that there being malafides on part of the Respondents, this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and grant the reliefs sought for.
6.4. In this regard, he relies upon the Division Bench by Judgment of this Court in L. -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 Ramakrishnappa -v- Presiding Officer1, more particularly para nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
20. To sum up, our conclusions on the two questions of law arising for consideration, are as follows:
(1) Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the illegality committed in the course of holding election to the offices of any authority/body which is regulated by statutory provisions (other than election to the Parliament and State Legislature), notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy, by way of filing Election Petition, if violation of law is established. In other words, such a Writ Petition is maintainable.
(2) However, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 being an extraordinary one, this Court as a general rule, will not and should not entertain a Petition in matters connected with such elections even if any illegality is shown to have been committed, if the law provides an effective alternative remedy and the illegality is such in respect of which adequate relief could be granted in an Election Petition. In other words, this Court will not and should not entertain Writ Petition lightly, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Muthuswamy.
(3) In exceptional cases in which 'the illegality committed is patent and does not depend upon the investigation of disputed questions of fact and interference is called for to prevent, abuse of power and the taking of advantage of such illegality by its beneficiaries for some time, waste of public time 1 1991 SCC Online Kar 423 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 and money and to avoid inconvenience to the public institution concerned, this Court has not only the power but also under a duty to interfere provided the party aggrieved approaches this Court forthwith and in good time.
21. The next question for consideration is, whether this is a fit case in which we should interfere. Normally illegal acceptance of nomination papers do not constitute a substantial injury to the other eligible candidates. It is well settled principle in law governing resolution of election disputes that in the case of illegal acceptance of nominations, the election of a candidate can be set aside only if it is proved by evidence that the result was materially affected on account of illegal acceptance of one or more nomination papers. Therefore, in such cases it is impossible to hold in a Writ Petition that the result of the election is going to be materially affected. Therefore, if the total number of eligible, candidates whose nominations are accepted is more than the number of candidates to be elected; even if a few nominations of ineligible candidates are accepted, it would give no valid ground for interference in a Writ Petition. Similarly, if the question asto whether a candidate whose nomination is accepted, is eligible or not, is a disputed question of fact, this Court cannot decide the said question in a Writ Petition. Therefore, as a general principle it can safely be said that a Writ Petition challenging the legality of acceptance of nomination papers should not be entertained. Therefore, in this case, we would have upheld the dismissal of the Writ Petition and dismissed the appeal, but for the flagrant illegality committed and abuse of power indulged in by the first respondent, but for which the appellant and four others have been declared elected as uncontested.
22. The facts and circumstances and the reasons which place this case in an exceptional category are:
(i) Flagrant illegality committed by the first respondent in accepting the nominations of respondents 3 to 8 knowing fully well that only five
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 Societies specified in Annexure-B were eligible from among 'A' class Members in view of the Notification issued by the State Government dated 25-1-1991 (Annexure-A) under Section 29C(5) of the Act and that in view of that Notification respondents 3 to 8 were ineligible to contest in the elections, which fact is not even disputed by respondents 3 to 8.
(ii) Regarding 'B' class Members from which two Members are to be elected, the first respondent rejected the nomination paper of Nagaraja Reddy, the appellant in W.A. No. 2489 of 1991, relying on the same Notification (Annexure-A). The endorsement issued to him reads:
"Endorsement The nomination paper of Sri R. Nagaraja Reddy s/o late Ramaiah in the 'B' category is rejected, since he has not transacted with Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society, to the extent of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) during the last preceding year, as per Government Order No. CMW 5 CPC 87 dated 25-1-1991.
Bangalore Sd/-
Returning Officer, Date: 25-1 -1991 TAPCMS, Bangalore North ARCS, Bangalore III Circle."
The appellants have stated that out of 17 candidates as many as 15 nomination papers filed, in respect of 'B' class, including that of the appellant in W.A.2489/1991, were rejected relying on Annexure-A and the remaining two candidates were declared elected unopposed. The conduct of the first respondent as above clearly establishes legal mala fides.
(iii) There is also no dispute that if the nominations of six persons, that is, of respondents 3 to 8 were rejected as they ought to have been rejected, there was no necessity for taking the poll for the reason
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 that there would have been only five valid nominations including that of the appellants and all of them had to be declared elected uncontested as the number of persons to be elected from among 'A' class Members is seven, as has been done by the Returning Officer in respect of 'B' class Members.
(iv) The refusal on our part to interfere would help the ineligible candidates, some of whom are bound to be declared elected, as eligible candidates are only five, to reap the benefit of the illegal action of the first respondent till the disposal of election dispute, which would in the usual course take considerable time, which can be enlarged still, resorting to delaying tactics which is usually resorted to in such cases by those who had been benefited by the illegal action of the Returning Officer.
(v) It is not in the interest of the second respondent-institution, to allow all or any of the respondents 3 to 8 to secure the power to manage the affairs of the second respondent, when they are ineligible to hold the office.
23. Thus, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that this is an exceptional case in which we should stop the illegality at the earliest and that if we decline to interfere under Article 226, we would be failing in our duty.
24. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that if we were to hold that in such glaring cases also we decline to interfere, it would only encourage the Returning Officers who are prone to act in such arbitrary manner to do so and allow the beneficiaries of such illegal action to reap the fruits until an election dispute is decided which would take and would be made to take longer time. We see considerable force in the submission.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 6.5. By relying on Ramakrishnappa's case, he submits that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the illegality committed in the course of holding of election to the offices of any Authorities/Body which is regulated by statutory provisions other than election to the Parliament and State Legislature, this being so notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy by way of filing of an election petition. The contention is also that under Article 226, this Court would have an extraordinary jurisdiction. 6.6. Though as a general rule, this Court would not entertain a petition in matters connected with elections, however, if illegality is shown to have been committed, even if the law provides an effective alternate remedy, this Court would have to set right the illegality and injustice caused and as such, he submits that the nature
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 of the illegality which has been committed by the Respondents in rejecting the nomination of the Petitioner for OBC Category-A if set aside, the petitioner would be entitled to contest for the said OBC Category-A and as such the unilateral announcement of results by the Returning Officer would have to be set aside with a direction to conduct the elections. 6.7. He relies upon the full bench decision of this Court in Nanjundaswamy -v- Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies2, more particularly para no. 11 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. We see really no divergence of opinion between the Judgments in Maruthi's case and in Gurumallappa's case. Maruthi's case lays down the law as we have set it out. Gurumallappa's case is an illustration of the principle that the High Court has the power to interfere in election disputes and shall exercise that power only in the most extraordinary circumstances. The action of the Election Officer in that case to hold an election upon the basis of a calendar of events issued seven years back although three candidates who had filed their nominations pursuant thereto had died was such extraordinary circumstance. The observation 2 1992 SCC Online Kar 82
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 of the Division Bench that the provision for filing an election petition was not an efficacious remedy and a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to hold a fresh election could be issued must be read in the light of those extraordinary circumstances. All that was meant to be conveyed was that in those extraordinary circumstances the provision for filing an election petition would not do justice. 6.8. By relying on Nanjundaswamy's case,he submits that the High Court has the power to interfere in election disputes and can exercise such powers in extraordinary circumstances. The circumstances of the present matter are so extraordinary that this Court ought to exercise its powers, and on that basis he submits that the reliefs as sought for are requiredto be granted.
7. Sri. Yogesh Nayak, learned AGA, would submit that, 7.1. The Petitioner had submitted two sets of nominations, one for General category at 12.45 p.m. and another under OBC category at 12.53 p.m. Under Rule 14A(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, ['KCS Rules' for short], only one nomination paper could be
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 submitted by any candidate. The first nomination had been submitted under General category, the same was accepted. Since the second nomination could not have been submitted in terms of Rule 14A(1), the second nomination paper was rejected.
7.2. His submission is also that there was no requirement as such to pass any order on the second nomination. The second nomination not being capable of being submitted would have been automatically rejected and it is only the first nomination paper which could have been considered. He relies on the Provisio to Rule 14A of the KCS Rules to contend that no member/delegate shall be a candidate for more than one constituency and that no member/delegate shall propose more than one candidate from the same constituency. As such, he submits that there is a prohibition for the Petitioner to have submitted two nomination
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 papers, as also for Sri. Tammayya Gowda to have endorsed or proposed a candidate for two constituencies.
7.3. His contention is that the election results are not undated or unsigned, the same has been dated and signed as 03.03.2025 in terms of Annexure-R2 to the objections and even as per Annexure-E, the date is indicated as 03.03.2025 and has been signed by the Returning Officer.
7.4. He submits that even for withdrawal of the nomination, such withdrawal application has to be submitted in Form-15, the withdrawal application not having been submitted in Form- 15 could not have been considered. The official results were declared and displayed on the Notice Board of the Society on 03.03.2025 as per Rule 14B(4) of the KCS Rules.
7.5. There being no contest in OBC Category-A, the sole contestant was declared elected
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 unopposed. Thereafter, elections were conducted on 09.03.2025 to the constituencies where there were more than one contestant. Those results were also declared and subsequently election to the President and Vice President was conducted on 17.03.2025 which results were also declared. Thus, the election process has been completed in a proper manner. The Petitioner cannot have any grievance as regards the procedure which has been followed.
7.6. In that background, he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastri, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3-Society adopts the submission of Sri. Yogesh Nayak, learned AGA and he submits that, 8.1. Several members had withdrawn their nomination on 03.03.2025, hence, the Returning Officer declared elected the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 remaining candidates in the reserved category for women, backward classes A and B, and SC and ST post, as unopposed since in terms of Rule 14-G (2), the Returning Officer is required to declare such candidates to be duly elected forthwith.
8.2. The results having been declared, the writ petition is not maintainable and it is only an election petition under Section 70 of the KCS Act, which provides an alternative efficacious remedy for the Petitioner. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division bench of this Court in Jayamuthu -v- State Election Commissioner For Co-operation3, more particularly para nos. 23, 24 and 33 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"23. Taking up the first contention, at the outset, it is held that there can be no distinction between a case of improper rejection of a nomination of a 3 Laws (KAR) 2017-4-85
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 candidate in an election and improper acceptance of a nomination in the context of filing of a writ petition in order to assail the same though there is a vital difference between the two, in that, in the former case, the aggrieved party cannot participate in the election process and in the latter case the aggrieved party would be entitled to participate in the election. However, on getting the election of the successful party-whose nomination was illegally accepted-being set aside in a properly constituted election petition, the aggrieved party would get the relief. But the point is, whether, because of the aforesaid difference, it can be held that in the case of an improper rejection of nomination, a writ petition could be filed by the aggrieved party and not at the instance of an aggrieved party, when it is a case of improper or illegal acceptance of a nomination. We do not think that such distinction could be made for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In either case, whether it is a case of improper acceptance of a nomination or improper rejection of a nomination, the same would require proof of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition, merely on the basis of affidavit and counter affidavits. As the reasons for improper rejection or improper acceptance of nomination could be for myriad reasons and merely because in a particular case proof of disputed question of facts would not arise, it cannot be held that the writ petition could be maintained. Therefore, when once the election process has commenced, courts ought not to interfere in the election process and particularly the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with an election process. While saying so, we rely upon an early decision and time tested precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami, which case arose precisely on the question of improper rejection of nomination of a candidate therein. Though in that case Article 329(b) of the Constitution applied, nevertheless the principles propounded therein would apply with all force to all elections.
24. N.P.Ponnuswami's case in fact, has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanhoo
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 Mal vs. Hira Mal [AIR 1976 SC 2140], which was a case of election to a Municipal Board, wherein it has been held that the election to the office of the president, could be challenged only according to the procedure prescribed by the Municipalities Act i.e. by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of that Act and in no other way. Thus, a post-election remedy by way of an election petition is in our view, an adequate remedy to give relief to an aggrieved party, as improper rejection or acceptance of the nomination of a candidate is always a ground to assail an election.
33. The observation in L.Ramakrishnappa's case have been considered by the Full Bench of this court in Nanjundaswamy vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, [ILR 1992 KAR 972] and it has been categorically held that the remedy of an Election Petition is the remedy that is normally available in election disputes. The principle of law is that, when once the election process has begun it should not be interfered with. In that case also, the dispute arose with regard to the filing of nomination paper for being elected to the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society. It was held that the remedy of election dispute was available under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 in order to assail the improper rejection of the nomination paper of a candidate. The Full bench considered the correctness of the judgments of this court in Maruthi vs. State of Karnataka, [ILR 1990 KAR 1378] and B.Gurumallappa vs. State of Karnataka, [ILR 1991 KAR 577] and it opined that there so no divergence of opinion in the two judgments. According to the Full Bench, Maruthi's case lays down the law as set out therein and B.Gurumallappa's case is an illustration of the principle that the High Court could exercise power in election disputes only in the most extraordinary circumstances. The action of the Election Officer in that case to hold an election on the basis of a calendar of events issued seven years earlier although three candidates who had filed their nominations pursuant thereto, had died, was an
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 extraordinary circumstance calling for interference. Therefore, in Gurumallappa's case, the interference was on the peculiar facts of that case, but the Full Bench found that in Nanjundaswamy's case no extraordinary circumstances arose to exercise discretion and interfere in the matter pertaining to improper rejection of a nomination. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, reliance placed on L.Ramakrishnappa's case by the appellant is of no assistance in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.T.Muthusami as well as the opinion of the Full Bench in Nanjundaswamy's case."
8.3. By relying on Jayamathu's case, he submits that improper acceptance or rejection of the nomination of a candidate cannot be distinguished under Article 226 of the Constitution, either of which would require proof of facts which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. When the election process has been commenced, the courts ought not to interfere in the election process. 8.4. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami -v- Returning Officer4, to contend that election to an office of 4 AIR 1952 SC 64
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 the President could be challenged only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Municipalities Act, the same cannot be questioned in a writ petition.
8.5. He relies upon Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others -v-Angadi Shekara Basappa and others5, more particularly para no. 4 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
4. It is now well settled that once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and this (sic High) Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226 of the Constitution. (See in this connection para 3 in K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain .) The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under Section 70(2)(C) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law.5
(1998) 9 SCC 175
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 8.6. By relying on Umesh Shivappa Ambi's case, he submits that once an election is over, aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provision of law, and the High Court cannot interfere with the election under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8.7. He relies upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in V.S. Manjunath -v- Chief Election Commissioner and others, more particularly para no. 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
The only issue is rejection of a nomination paper. Rejection of a nomination of the petitioner on whatsoever ground, it is during the process of election and this Court cannot entertain the petition amidst the election. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Syed Yasin vs. The Chief Election Commissioner NC: 2024:KHC:15703 and Election Commissioners, Election and others1, which reads as follows:
" 11. The Election Commission issued press note dated 29.03.2023 publishing schedule for the General Assembly Election to the Legislative Assembly of State of Karnataka. The petitioner filed his nomination paper to Raichur-54 Assembly
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 Constituency on 20.04.2023 in terms of Annexure- B.
12. On scrutiny, the petitioner's nomination paper is rejected on the following three grounds:
"1. Rejected because Less than 10 proposes one proposes not tally with electoral roll.
2. Not filed nomination in the prescribed annexure 2B
3. Affidavit Col.3(iii) 5, 6, Part- B not filed."
13. It is an admitted fact that the nomination of the petitioner is rejected on the above grounds. Election would mean the process from the date of issuance of scheduled of General Assembly Election or Calendar of Events by the Election Commission till results are published. The Hon'ble Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami case (supra) has held that the word 'election' is used to embrace the whole procedure of election and is not confined to final result thereof-Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper is included in the term. Thus rejection of nomination is in the process of election.
14. Section 80 of 1951 Act provides for election petition questioning the election. Section 100 of Act 1951 provides for grounds for declaring election to be void. Section 100(1)(c) reads as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:15703 "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion-
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or"
15. As the rejection of nomination is also one of the grounds for declaring election to be void, it is for the petitioner to challenge the rejection of the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 nomination paper in a properly instituted election petition.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 has held that Representation of People Act, 1950 provides a proper forum for adjudicating the election disputes and no forum other than one so constituted competent to decide the disputes. It has further observed that only those actions of the Returning Officer which have the effect of interfering in the free flow of scheduled elections or hinder the process of election, amenable to writ jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the action of the Returning Officer would have effect on the free flow of scheduled election process or hinders the progress of the election.
17. The decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in L. Ramakrishnappa (supra) and Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) would not assist the petitioner.
18. In L. Ramakrishnappa (supra), the Division Bench of this court at conclusion(1) has observed that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution has the jurisdiction to interfere with the illegality committed in the course of holding election to the offices of any authority/body which is regulated by statutory provisions and specifically excluded the election to the parliament and state legislature. In Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the power of the Election Commission under Article 324 and the scope of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, has observed that the Election Commission under Article 324 of Constitution would be responsible for free and NC: 2024:KHC:15703 fair election and responsibility would cover, powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending upon the circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on the N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) has specifically made it clear that under Article 329(b) of Constitution the sole remedy for an aggrieved party, if he wants to
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 challenge any election, is an election petition and this exclusion of all other remedies includes constitutional remedies like Article 226 because of the non-obstante clause. Thus, I am of the view that writ petition challenging the rejection of nomination to Raichur-54 Assembly Constituency would not be maintainable and the remedy for the petitioner is to file election petition in terms of Section 80 of 1951 Act. The contention that the Returning Officer shall not reject the nomination if defect is not substantial, cannot be gone into in this writ petition. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be in a position to examine as to whether the grounds on which nomination is rejected is flimsy or whether it is substantial or not. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not maintainable."
8.8. By relying on V.S. Manjunath's case, he submits that rejection of a nomination paper of a petitioner on whatsoever ground during the process of election, the High Court cannot entertain the petition amidst the election. 8.9. On all the aforesaid grounds, it is subdued that the above petition is required to be dismissed.
9. Heard Sri.R.Subramanya, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D.Nayak, learned AGA for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 Sri.G.Balakrisha Shastri, learned counsel, appearing for Respondent No.3. Perused papers.
10. The points that would arise for the determination of this Court are;
1. Whether one person can file two nominations under the KCS Act and Rules?
2. Whether the same candidate could be endorsed or proposed by a member of the society for two constituencies?
3. Whether the rejection of the subsequent nomination submitted by the petitioner for OBC category-A is proper and correct?
4. Whether the facts and circumstances require this court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to interfere in the matter?
5. What order?
11. I answer the above points as under:
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025
12. ANSWER TO POINTS No.1:Whether one person can file two nominations under the KCS Act and Rules?
AND ANSWER TO POINTS No.2:Whether the same candidate could be endorsed or proposed by a member of the society for two constituencies? 12.1. Both the above points being connected are dealt with together in order to avoid repetition. 12.2. Rule 14A(1) of KCS Rules is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"14. Notification of General Election.-Presentation of nomination paper.- (1) On or before the date appointed for making nominations, each candidate shall in person deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf, a nomination paper duly completed in Form-XIII and signed by the candidate and another member with right to vote as proposer. Such nomination shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate expressing his willingness to stand as a candidate for election to the board of the society from a general constituency or a constituency reserved for SCs or STs or Women or Backward Classes.
Provided that no member/delegate shall be a candidate for more than one constituency and that no member/delegate shall propose more than one candidate from the same constituency.
Provided further that a nomination paper filed on behalf of a cooperative society shall be accompanied by a resolution of the board of that society and shall be signed by the candidate himself / herself.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 12.3. A perusal of Rule 14-A (1) of KCS Rules would indicate that on or before the date appointed for making nominations, each candidate in person shall deliver to the Returning Officer or the Assistant Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf a nomination paper, duly completed in Form- 13 signed by the candidate and another member with right to vote, as proposer.
12.4. Such nomination paper shall contain a declaration signed by the candidate expressing his willingness to stand as a candidate for election to the Board of the society from a General constituency or a constituency reserved for SCs or STs or women or Backward classes.
12.5. The first proviso to sub-Rule 14A(1) would indicate that no member/delegate shall be a candidate for more than one constituency and
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 that no member/delegate shall propose more than one candidate from the same constituency.
12.6. The above provisioto sub-Rule 14A(1) would indicate that a nomination paper would have to be filed by a candidate expressing his willingness to stand as a candidate for election to the Board from any of the constituencies, i.e, he or she could file a nomination from a General constituency or a constituency reserved for SCs or STs or women or backward classes. The disjunctive 'or' having been used, it is clear that a nomination can be submitted only as regards one constituency, that is the General constituency, SC constituency, ST constituency, women's constituency or backward classes constituency.
12.7. There is therefore a specific embargo under Rule 14A(1) for submitting multiple nominations. The first proviso also further
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 makes it clear that no member shall be a candidate for more than one constituency, thus reinforcing the disjunctive 'or' used in Rule 14A(1).It was therefore not available for the petitioner to have submitted two nomination forms, one under the General constituency and the other under the Backward classes constituency.
12.8. When two nominations could not be submitted, the question of the candidate withdrawing oneof the nominations would not arise, the second nomination submitted being in violation of the applicable law. There being no consquence of disqualification on account of the violation of the above requirement, the candidate would have to be allowed to contest, but the question arises regarding which constituency. The validity of the nomination form would have to be considered with respect
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 to the time when the nomination papers had been submitted.
12.9. As can be clearly seen from the records that were produced, the first nomination submitted by the petitioner on 1.03.2025 was under the General category at 12.45pm and the second nomination was submitted under the OBC reserved category at 12.53 p.m. The petitioner having made a choice to submit a nomination in the General category at the first instance, only the said nomination could be accepted. The second nomination for OBC reserved category submitted at 12.53 p.m. being the subsequent nomination would fall foul of both Rule 14A(1), as also the first provisio to Rule 14A(1).
12.10. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that a candidate can submit only one nomination in a constituency so chosen by the said candidatesuch candidate cannot submit two nomination forms.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 12.11. If there are two nomination forms submitted, it is only the first nomination form which could be considered, and the second nomination form would have to be automatically rejected in view of the specific embargo, under Rule 14A(1) and the first proviso thereof.
12.12. Insofar as a member proposing or endorsing more than one candidate, it is again the first proviso of Rule 14A(1) which would have to be considered.The second part of the said proviso would indicate that no member shall propose more than one candidate from the same constituency. Though in the present matter, Tammaya Gowda has not proposed more than one candidate from the same constituency, he has proposed the same member for two constituencies.The first proviso does not deal with this particular
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 situation, but however, to give effect to the first proviso, the first proviso would have to be read in consonance with Rule 14A(1).
12.13. As held in my answer to point number 1, a candidate can submit only one nomination for one constituency and he cannot submit two nominationswhich would automatically imply that another member cannot propose the same candidate for two different constituencies as done in the present matter, one for the General constituency and the other for the Backward classes constituency.
12.14. Thus I answer point No.2 by holding that the proposer cannot endorse more than one candidate from the same constituency as also the proposer cannot endorse the same candidate for more than one constituency.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025
13. ANSWER TO POINT No.3: Whether the rejection of the subsequent nomination submitted by the petitioner for OBC Category is proper and correct?
13.1. The petitioner when he approached this court had challenged the rejection of the nomination of the petitionerIn respect of the OBC category- A. As held in answer to point number 1 and 2, it can be clearly seen that the nomination for OBC category-A was submitted subsequently at 12.53 p.m. The same being a subsequent nomination could never have been submitted in view of the embargo under Rule 14A(1) and the first proviso to the said Rule. Thus, what followed with the rejection of the second nomination was, in my considered opinion, an automatic rejection to implement the requirement of Rule 14A(1) and the first proviso thereof.
13.2. The said nomination could have been rejected on both the grounds. Firstly, that the candidate
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 could not have submitted a nomination for two different constituencies, one for the General constituency and the second for OBC constituency. Secondly, the proposer has nominated the same candidate for two constituencies. It is the second aspect which has been considered by the authorities in rejecting the second nomination, I do not find any fault in the said rejection.
13.3. Thus, I answer point No.3 by holding that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner has been made in confirmty with the first proviso to Rule 14A(1) and there is no infirmity in the same.
14. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4: Whether the facts and circumstances require this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to interfere in the matter? 14.1. It has been vehemently contended by Sri.R.Subramanya that there is illegality which has been resorted to by the respondents in
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 rejecting his nomination to favour the sole candidate who had submitted his nomination for OBC Category-A.Though this aspect is covered by my answer to points No.1 to 3 above, since this issue has been raised, the same would have to be answered by this court. 14.2. Sri. Subramanya has relied upon the decision in L. Ramkrishnapa's case, the relevant paragraphs have been reproduced hereinabove. A perusal of para 20 reproduced above would indicate that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 would not normally entertain such a petition. The same can only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances.
14.3. In that case, the Division Bench of this court had exercised powers under Article 226 on the ground that the candidates who had been accepted to be eligible were not so eligible and as such, elections being held by allowing
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 ineligible candidates to participate in the election was not permissible and as such, the Division bench of this court intervened in the election process by interdicting the ineligible candidates from participating in the election. 14.4. In the present case, it is not that an ineligible candidate has participated in the election. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an eligible candidate whose nomination has been improperly rejected. This has been answered by me hereinabove. 14.5. The candidate who had filed the nomination for OBC category-A, being the sole eligible candidate was declared elected by the Returning Officer.
14.6. The decision in Nanjundaswami's case was also where elections were held seven years after the calendar of events had been announced without there being any intervening court orders permitting such elections to be
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 held. It is in that background that the full bench of this court interdicted the elections on the ground that such belated elections could not be held.Both the decisions, in my considered opinion, would not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
14.7. As aforesaid, the candidate who has contested is an eligible candidate and the elections have been held and completed in pursuance of the calendar of events issued at that particular point of time, there is no delay in the process requiring the application of the dicta laid down by the full bench in Nanjundaswami's case. 14.8. That apart, Rule 14G of the KCS Rules would also be attracted. The same is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
14G. Procedure in contested and uncontested election.- (1) If the number of contesting candidates in any area or constituency is more than the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, a poll shall be taken (2) If the number of such candidates in any constituency is equal to the number of seats to be
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 filled from that area or constituency, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill these seats in Form XIX as may be appropriate.
(3) If the number of such candidates is less than the number of seats to be filled from that constituency or place, the returning officer shall declare all such candidates to be duly elected after withdrawal is over in Form XIX as may be appropriate and the District Election Officer shall, with the approval of the Cooperative Election Commission, call upon the society to elect a person or persons to fill the remaining seat or seats. After such election to fill the casual vacancy is over, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates duly elected to fill those casual vacancy seats in Form XX.
14.9. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14G requires that if the number of candidates in any constituency is equal to the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. In the present case, there being only one candidate who had submitted his nomination for OBC category-A, there being only one seat which would have to be filled up, the number of candidates being equivalent to number of seats, there was an
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 obligation on part of the Returning Officer to forthwith declare such a candidate to be duly elected. It was therefore not required for the Returning Officer to await the date of election and thereafter declare such candidate to be elected.
14.10. On the scrutiny being completed, there being only one candidate for the single post, there cannot be any infirmity found with the order passed by the retaining officer.
14.11. Thus, I answer point No.5 by holding that in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14G of the KCS Rules if the number of candidates in any constituency is equal to the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats, the said Rule having been given effect to there is no infirmity in the orders passed requiring this court to exercise its extraordinary powers
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16111 WP No. 6632 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution to interdict the elections and all the results.
15. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: What order?
15.1. In view of my answers to all the above points, there being no grounds which have been made out, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4