Karnataka High Court
Sri S Basavaraju vs The Secretary on 28 January, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.68 OF 2022 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S. BASAVARAJU
S/O SHRI NANJAPPA
AGE 42 YEARS
MEMBERSHIP NO.04
2. NANJEGOWDA M
S/O MALLEGOWDA
AGE 54 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.359
3. K.P. SOMASHEKAR
S/O PUTTASUBAPPA
AGE 46 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.48
4. MALLANNA
S/O LATE GURULINGAPPA,
AGE 55 YEARS
MEMBERSHIP NO.129
5. G. MARISWAMY
S/O LATE GURUMALAPPA
AGE 57 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.82
6. BASAWARAJU
S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE 62 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.208
-2-
7. NANJAMANI
S/O PUTTAWAMAPPA,
AGE 58 YEARS,
NOT A PARTY
MEMBERSHIP NO.85
8. GOWRAMMA
W/O SIDDANAYAKA
AGE 44 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.28
9. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O SIDDAYYA,
AGE 45 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.280
10 . MADANAYAKA
S/O SHIVANNA
AGE 35 YEARS,
MEMBERSHIP NO.337
(APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 10 ARE ALL
R/O KETHAHALLI VILLAGE
MUGURU HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU - 571124.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
KETHAHALLI MILK FEDERATION
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY (NIYAMITHA)
T. NARASIPURA
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU - 571124.
2. THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR ELECTION
KETHAHALLI MILK FEDERATION
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY (NIYAMITHA)
T.NARASIPURA
T.NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU - 571124.
-3-
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF-OPERATIVE
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
MYSURU
MYSURU - 57005.
4. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT COOPERATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560004.
5. K.B. JAGADEESHA
S/O BASAWANNA
AGE 46 YEARS
6. SRI MARINAYAKA
S/O LATE KARAGANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
7. SRI K.S. SHIVAKUMARA
S/O SUBBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
8. SRI SIDDANAYAKA
S/O MARINAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
9. SMT. SUNDRAMMA
W/O. MAHADEVANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
10 . SRI SIDDANAYAKA
S/O SHIVAGANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
11 . SRI PUTTIAH
S/O KARIMADIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)
12 . SRI M. RAVINDRA
S/O LATE MALLANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-4-
13 . SMT. MANU
W/O S.BASAVARAJU,
AGE 32 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.159)
14 . SMT. MAMATHA
W/O NANJUNDASWAMY
AGE 38 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.352)
15 . SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGE 50 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.114)
16 . MADESH
S/O SHIVAMURTHY
AGE 45 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.158)
17 . MAHESH
S/O SUBBANNA
AGE 48 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.177)
18 . SMT. SHAHIKALA
W/O MAHESH,
AGE 48 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.250)
19 . MAHESH NAYAKA
S/O VISHAKANT NAYAKA,
AGE 38 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.362)
20 . KRISHNA NAYAKA
S/O MADANAYAKA
AGE 55 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.138)
21 . SRI SHANKARA
S/O SRI MALLAYYA
AGE 52 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.96)
-5-
22 . SRI SHASHI GOWDA
S/O SRI MALLEGOWDA
AGE 58 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.142)
23 . SMT. PREMA
W/O SRI NANJEGOWDA M
AGE 45 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.108)
24 . K.M. MADEGOWDA
S/O MALLEGOWDA,
AGE 60 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.140)
25 . VISHKANTANAYAKA
S/O MADANAYAKA
AGE 52 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.198)
26 . LAKSHAMAMMA
W/O PUTTAMADASHETTY
AGE 48 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.251)
27 . SHIVASWAMY
S/O SUBBANNA
AGE 39 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.134)
28 . K.P. PARASHIVAMURTHY
S/O PUTTASWAMAPPA,
AGE 52 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.339)
29 . JAVANA NAYAKA
S/O MADANAYAKA,
AGE 54 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.86)
30 . K. SIDDASETTY
S/O KIKKERI SETTY
AGE 46 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.240)
-6-
31 . MUDDUMALLASHETTY
S/O MARISHETTY
AGE 62 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.180)
32 . SIDDSHETTY
S/O KIKKERI SHETTY,
AGE 48 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.319)
33 . PUTTASHETTY
S/O CHIKKAMADASHETTY
AGE 48 YEARS
(MEMBERSHIP NO.199)
(RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 33 ARE ALL
R/O KETHAHALLI VILLAGE
MUGURU HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU - 571 124)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO 4 &
SRI VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN W.P. NO.24223/2021
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J.
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
JUDGMENT
The appellants are before this Court challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.No.24223/2021. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were petitioner Nos.1 and 13 in the said writ petition. Appellants Nos.4 to 10 were not parties to the said writ petition. Hence, an application (I.A.No.1/2022) has been filed seeking for permission to prosecute the above appeal. The contention raised in the said application is that the votes have already been cast and the election cannot be rescinded. Appellant Nos.4 to 10 being the contestants in the said election, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge seeks permission to prosecute the appeal.
2. The writ petition had been filed seeking for a direction to respondent No.2 to include the names of the petitioners in the list of eligible candidates for contesting the election issued by respondent No.2 and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the petitioners to contest and participate in the election scheduled on 08.01.2022 for respondent No.1-Kethahalli Milk Federation. -8-
3. At the stage of consideration of the interim prayer, the writ Court had granted an interim prayer subject to the final result of the writ petition. Though the copy of the interim order is not produced along with the writ petition, on enquiry, the learned counsel submits that the interim order was restricted only for the purpose of casting of vote and not for contesting the elections.
4. The grounds raised in the said writ petition were that under Section 20 clause a(iv) and a(v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the said Act of 1959') no such eligibility criteria can be imposed upon the members of the Co-operative Society. As such, the petitioners ought to be permitted to cast their vote and participate in the election without reference to the ineligibility criteria under Section 20 clause a(iv) and a(v) of the Act of 1959.
5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter has dismissed the writ petition by relying upon the decision of this Court in writ petition No.48973/2019 and connected matters in the case of (Sri Venkategowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others) dated -9- 04.08.2021, wherein the vires of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 clause a(iv) and a(v) of the Act, 1959 have been upheld. In view thereof, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the eligibility criteria imposed therein would be applicable to the petitioners and the petitioners not being eligible they could not have cast their vote. Taking that into account, the learned Single Judge has directed respondent No.2-Returning Officer to take note of these aspects and permit only those of the candidates who are eligible in terms of Annexure-C to the writ petition to cast their votes and the votes cast by the other petitioners shall not be taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge has also directed that if by this time the votes are counted, the same shall stand rescinded. The Returning Officer shall conduct re-polling once again within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. It is aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.
- 10 -
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the election is scheduled for today and voting is already underway.
8. The fact that appellant Nos.1 and 2 had only been permitted to cast their vote by way of interim order which was subject to the final order being passed in the writ petition is not in dispute. The only ground being as regards, the applicability of Section 20 clause a(iv) and a(v) of the Act of 1959 which has been upheld in writ petition No.48973/2019, the final orders passed being in accordance with the said judgment in writ petition No.48973/2019, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. The right conferred by way of the interim order being subject to the final orders, the right being rescinded by the final order, the votes cast by the petitioners cannot be counted and cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the result of the election. As such, the direction of the learned Single Judge directing the Returning Officer to conduct re-polling once again is proper and correct. As
- 11 -
such, this Court cannot come to the rescue of ineligible voters to frustrate the election process.
10. In view thereof, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
11. I.A.No.1/2022 is filed by the persons who are not parties to the writ petition seeking for permission to prosecute is also dismissed since there is no vested right created in their favour by way of the interim order.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE KPS