Karnataka High Court
Hanamappa Alias Hanamantappa S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685
WP No. 100063 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 100063 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA
S/O. YALLAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. HANAMANTA S/O. BAILAPPA VADDAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO.4, NEAR MALLYAPPA KELLUR,
TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. BASAPPA BASAPPA PALLED,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
M KANKUPPI
4. MALLAPPA KONAPPA BELLIVARY,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
DHARWAD
BENCH R/O. KELLUR, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. SHIVAYYA S/O. BALAYYA MUDAGALLA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. BASAVARAJ SHANKRAPPA TOTAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685
WP No. 100063 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. NILAPPA JINAKAPPA KADAPATTI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
III FLOOR, "A" BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING,
SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
KELLUR, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. THE MANAGER,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY KELLUR, TQ: ILKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. SATYAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DURAGAD,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
6. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
7. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685
WP No. 100063 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
8. RAMACHANDRA S/O. YAMANAPPA VADDAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
9. SHIVAPPA S/O. CHANDAPPA ITAGI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
10. PRABAKAR S/O. SHRINIVAS DESHAPANDE,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
11. BASAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA HOLAGUNDI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
12. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. BASAPPA ASANGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
13. VEERAPPA S/O. GURUPADAPPA MANDI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
14. NINGANAGOUDA
S/O. MAHABALESHWARGOUDA NADAGOUDAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685
WP No. 100063 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. APPASAHEB S/O. NEELANTGOUDA NADAGOUDAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
16. VAJEERAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA PUJAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KELLUR, TQ: ILAKAL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587124.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. G.V. BHARAMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. PUNITH V. BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R16)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A,
PASSED/ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 WHEREIN THE
PETITIONER NOMINATION WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND
THAT WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS NOMINATION WAS
REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT "CUÀvÀå ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuA
É iÀÄ oɪ£
À À gÀ²Ã¢
®UÀw¹
Û gÀĪÀÅ¢®è AND PETITIONER NO.3 vÀºÀ²¯ÁÞgj
À AzÀ ¥Àqz
É À eÁw
¥Àª Û gÀĪÀÅ¢®è IN SO FAR AS PETITTIIONERS ARE
æ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ®UÀw¹
CONCERNED.
B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER AS
NOMINATION AND PERMIT HIM TO CONTESTING THE POST OF
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685
WP No. 100063 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIRECTOR ENSUING ELECTION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3, the Returning Officer, who rejected the nomination submitted by the petitioners for election to respondent No.4/Society.
2. It is the contention of learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are primary members of respondent No.4- Co-Operative Society, registered under the Co-Operative Societies Act. The respondent No.4-Society had a total 850 eligible borrowers (who were also voting members) and 156 eligible non-borrowers. The final list of eligible voters was published for the purpose of conducting elections to respondent No.4/Society. It is further contended that after -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR the issuance of final voters' list, petitioners submitted their nominations for the post of membership, along with the requisite documents. After the filing of the nominations, respondent No.3 published the total number of members' nomination on 04.01.2025. However, the nomination papers submitted by the petitioners were rejected by respondent No.3 without issuing any written intimation and based solely on an oral statement. It is contended that the petitioners' nominations were rejected on the ground that they had not submitted the deposit receipts (kannada Thevani) and for some of them for non- production of caste certificates as on the date of filing of the nomination i.e. on 05.01.2025. Subsequently, the list of nominated members was published. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.3, in exercise of the powers vested with him, issued the calendar of events on 23.12.2024, notifying the election to the post of Director of respondent No.4-Society scheduled to be held on 12.01.2025. The calendar of -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR events specified the dates for filing nominations, scrutiny, withdrawal of nomination, publication of the list of contesting candidates and the conduct of the elections.
3. This being the state of affairs, in the impugned order at Annexure-A was passed by respondent No.3, rejecting the petitioners' nominations on the ground that they had not paid or produced the deposit receipts and had failed to submit their caste certificates wherever required. The petitioners were shocked at the act of the respondent No.3 in not considering the payment already made and deposit receipts produced by the petitioners along with the nomination papers and so also the Caste Certificates for few of the members contesting the polls.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the rules prescribed and so also having not considered the substantial nature of objections so alleged for nomination, -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR same is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that petitioners are eligible voters and having valid voting power and they are eligible to contest in the elections. But without considering this aspect of the deposit receipts having been filed and so also nominations are rejected mechanically without following due process of law and so also requirements as stipulated. On these grounds, learned counsel for petitioners seeks to quash the elections and affirm the interim order granted by this Court and directing the 3rd respondent to accept the nomination papers and conduct the fresh elections.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners relies upon the Judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.107421/2023(CS-EL/M). He relies on proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14-B of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960 and contends that the coordinate bench of this Court and allowed the petitioners therein insofar as rejection of the nomination papers, -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR quashed the same and permitted acceptance of the nomination papers.
6. Per Contra, learned AGA representing the State vehemently contends that the rejection of the nomination papers filed by the petitioners is correct and does not call for any interference as the endorsement came to be issued by the 3rd respondent while rejecting the nomination of the petitioners for not confining to the rules and regulations of the Society and so also the notification and for non payment of the deposit and non furnishing of the deposit receipts so also the Caste Certificates, which is the requirement under the law, same has been rejected which is in accordance with law and same was communicated to the petitioners while rejecting the nominations of the petitioners. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or arbitrary to the well established rules and regulations. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On this ground itself it is also contended by learned AGA that the present petition is not maintainable for the reason that rejection of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR nomination papers is substantial, or otherwise, on whatever grounds alleged by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners could take the alternative efficacious remedy that is available by preferring an Election Petition under Section 70(2) of Act and the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction and Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stall the elections, and more so, when there is a disputed question of fact whether the petitioners deposited by the receipts or not, cannot be considered by this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel Sri V.P.Vadavi representing the respondents No.5 to 16 concurs with the arguments put forth by the learned AGA and contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of N.P.Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist. And Others, reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 and the subsequent judgments, thereafter by the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the High Courts and the other Courts should not in the normal circumstances interfere
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR with the election matters once the notification has been issued and should relegate the parties to avail remedy available under the statute.
8. Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment in the case of Laxmibai vs. The Collector, Nanded and Others, Civil Appeal No.1622/2020 (arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.16837/2019) so also another judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Syed Yasin S/o.Syed Mohiuddin vs. The Chief Election Commissioner and others in W.P.No. 201340/2023(LB-ELE), whereby the coordinate bench of this Court relying upon the Judgment in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), Manda Jaganath vs. K.S.Rathnam and Others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492, L.Ramakrishnappa vs. Presiding Officer, reported in ILR 1991 KAR 4421 and in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, this Court has passed an order holding that the rejection of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR nominations papers of the petitioners therein even on the ground of whether it being substantial in nature cannot be gone into in the writ petition under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently rejected the petition.
9. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for respondent No.1 including learned counsel for other respondents.
10. In the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the election matters interjected during the period of elections after the notification has dealt with passed the very detailed order detailing as to how and when and whether the election process can be interfered. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that "the improper rejection of nomination papers cannot be subject of writ petition of certiorari or mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India"
only ground for challenging the election of return
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR candidate is properly instituted election petition and cannot be raised at an intermediate stage, and further held that where liability is created by statute which gives special remedy for enforcing it remedies provided by statute only plea must be availed. It is further held that Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India scope of bar under Article 329(b) excludes the jurisdiction of High Court deal with any matter which may arise while the elections are in progress. It is also held that alternative remedy where a right or liberty is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing is the remedy provided by the statue must be availed off. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.14, 19, 24 and 25(1) and 25(2) of the Judgment in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra) :
"14. The next important question to be considered is what is meant by the words "no election shall be called in question". A reference to any treatise on elections in England will show that an election proceeding in that country is liable to be assailed on very limited grounds, one of them being the improper rejection of a nomination paper. The law with which we are concerned is not materially different, and we find that in Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one of the grounds for declaring an election to be void is the improper rejection of a nomination paper.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR
19. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford in the following passage : [CB (NS) p. 356 : ER p. 495] "... There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law: there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, and the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy: there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. ... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to."
The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad v. Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd. and Secy. of State v. Mask & Co. and it has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights (see Hurdutrai Jagadish Prasad v. Official Assignee of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR Calcutta. That being so, I think it will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act to state that the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage.
24. It may be pointed out that Article 329(b) must be read as complementary to clause (a) of that article. Clause (a) bars the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to such law as may be made under Articles 327 and 328 relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies. It was conceded before us that Article 329(b) ousts the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to matters arising between the commencement of the polling and the final selection. The question which has to be asked is what conceivable reason the legislature could have had to leave only matters connected with nominations subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If Part XV of the Constitution is a code by itself i.e. it creates rights and provides for their enforcement by a Special Tribunal to the exclusion of all courts including the High Court, there can be no reason for assuming that the Constitution left one small part of the election process to be made the subject-matter of contest before the High Courts and thereby upset the time schedule of the elections. The more reasonable view seems to be that Article 329 covers all "electoral matters".
25. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be summed up briefly as follows:
(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress."
11. On careful consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), it is apparently clear that once the election process has begun, the Court should generally not interfere at any intermediate stage. If any of the parties aggrieved by any of the illegalities committed in the process of election, it could be available at the liberty of the aggrieved person/petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
12. In the present case on hand, it is the contention of petitioners that the nominations were rejected on the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR flimsy ground of non-production of deposit receipts, whereas the petitioners have produced the deposit receipts of payment of the amount and so also the production of caste certificates, whereas it is a categorical say of the State that the nominations have been rejected for non-filing of the deposit receipts and also for non- furnishing of the Caste Certificates, which is the requirement in the election process and also as per the notification, pursuant to the scrutiny, the nominations are rejected. It will not be open for this Court to scrutinize the papers of nominations under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra) has already held in detail as to when and whether the Court can interfere in the election process after the notification has been published the process has begun. It is also held in detail as to the available in the exploring and the availability of alternate efficacious remedy once made out in the statute, and then it should be the duty and obligation of the petitioners
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685 WP No. 100063 of 2025 HC-KAR aggrieved to approach the statutory remedy only rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. The other argument put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners that the rejection of nomination is on the substantial character. Therefore, this Court would have to interfere in the election process and direct the respondent No.3 to accept the nominations of the petitioners with great respect, and in my humble pinion, it may not be the correct preposition, which runs contrary to the judgment in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra) and this very aspect has been negated by a coordinate bench of this Court in the judgment passed in WP.No.201340/2023. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners to entertain this petition, much less providing any relief in favour of petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the fallowing :
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8685
WP No. 100063 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the election in the manner known to law and if any such petition is filed, the question of limitation shall be considered by the appropriate authority and the period spent herein shall be condoned.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RHR/CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1