Karnataka High Court
Smt Mallavva W/O Mahadevappa Walikar vs The State Co- Operative Election ... on 9 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675
WP No. 103172 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.103172 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA WALIKAR,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. SHARANAYYA MASGATTI,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
3. HULLAPPA YAMANAPP KADARMANDAGI,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
4. SANGAPPA S/O. DURGAVVA MADAR,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
5. PARASAPPA MARIYAPPA TUMARIKOPPA,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR ALL ARE R/O. ILLAL VILLAGE,
TALUK. ILKAL, DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-587125.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B ...PETITIONERS
SHELAR
Date: 2026.03.17
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
14:49:47 +0530
AND:
1. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY,
3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK SHANTI NAGAR,
TTMC BUILDING, BENGALURU-560002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675
WP No. 103172 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
BAGALKOT-587101 AND THE ELECTION OFFICER,
TALUKA LEVEL AND BELOW DISTRICT
AREA OF OPERATION OF ALL TYPES OF
PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, BAGALKOT
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587101.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA
SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMIT,
TALUK. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125.
4. THE PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA
SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMIT, ILLAL
TALUK. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.V. BHARAMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
SMT. KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED
LIST/ENDORSEMENT DATED 11/03/2024 REJECTING THE
NOMINATION OF PETITIONERS ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2.
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION OF THE
PETITIONERS AND TO CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS SCHEDULE TO
4TH RESPONDENT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675
WP No. 103172 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 11.03.2024 rejecting the nominations of the petitioners issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C, and also sought a mandamus directing respondent No.3 to accept the nominations of the petitioners and to conduct the elections to respondent No.4-Society.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:
2.1. Respondent No.4 is a Primary Co-Operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960. The elections to the Board of Management of respondent No.4-
Society were held in 2018. The members were elected as the Members of the Board of Management of respondent No.4 for a period of 5 years and the same has expired. On 29.02.2024, the calendar of events was published by -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent No.3 to hold the elections to respondent No.4- Society. Respondent No.3 rejected the nominations of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections contending that, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as the petitioners have got an efficacious remedy by way of filing an election petition. It is also contented that, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the nominations of the petitioners and the other similar candidates, acting in the official capacity, and strictly following the rules prescribed under the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 1960. As per the details and documents furnished by the petitioners in the nomination papers, petitioner No.1's nomination was rejected because she had failed to produce the receipt acknowledging the deposit of required fees made as per the instruction No.7 mentioned in the calendar of events dated 29.02.2024 while submitting the nomination papers; petitioner No.2's nomination was rejected as she has failed -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR to affix her signature/thumb impression properly in a visible manner. Respondent No.3 has produced the photocopy of Form No.13 filed by petitioner No.2; petitioner No.3 has made different signatures in Form No.13 and the declaration submitted along with the nomination papers; petitioner Nos.4 and 5 have not submitted the appropriate caste certificate as required under Instruction No.4 mentioned in the calendar of events dated 29.02.2024. The endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent No.3 committed an error in rejecting the nomination papers and the rejection of nomination papers is arbitrary and erroneous. To buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR this court in the case of L. Ramakrishnappa v. Presiding officer1 and contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable. Hence, on this ground he prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have an equal efficacious remedy provided under the Provisions of the Act of 1959 and Rules of 1960. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners regarding rejection of nomination papers is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is an undisputed fact that calendar of events is issued to hold an election for the post of Directors to respondent No.4 society. The calendar of events was issued on 29.02.2024. The petitioners have submitted the 1 ILR 1991 Karnataka 4421 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR nomination papers. Respondent No.3 rejected their nomination papers on the ground that petitioner No.1 has failed to produce the receipt acknowledging the deposit of required fees as per Instruction No.7 of the calendar of events, Petitioner No.2's nomination paper was rejected, as petitioner No.2 has failed to affix her signature/thumb impression properly in a visible manner, petitioner No.3's nomination paper was rejected on the ground that petitioner No.3 made different signatures in Form No. 13 and declaration submitted along with the nomination papers and petitioner Nos.4 and 5's nomination papers were rejected on the ground that they have not submitted the caste certificate as required under Instruction No.4 of the Calendar of Events dated 29.02.2024. Hence, respondent No.3 issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C. The petitioners have challenged the said endorsement. As the petitioners have an efficacious remedy by way of filing an election petition, the petitioners cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the rejection of nomination papers. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamuthu v. State Election Commission for Co-operation, Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation, Bangalore and others2 wherein the Division Bench held as follows:
"23. Taking up the first condition, at the outset, it is held that there can be no distinction between a case of improper rejection of a nomination of a 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 2 AIR 2017 KARNATAKA 109 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR 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, (AIR 1952 SC 64), 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.
(emphasis supplied) xxxx
27. Therefore in the matter of an election dispute although the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution is expressed to only elections held to the Parliament or the State Legislature, nevertheless, the principle emanating from that Article has been applied in respect of all other elections including that of local bodies or authorities constituted by a statute or to bodies formed under a statute. Therefore, we find that the aforesaid decisions would clearly imply that even in the case of improper rejection of a candidate, the aggrieved party cannot rush to the High Court to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but would have to avail of the remedy by way of election petition which is a statutory remedy. Hence, the Hon'ble Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. However, the controversy does not end in the instant case."
10. From the perusal of paragraph 27, the Division Bench has held that, in case of a improper rejection of a candidate, the aggrieved party cannot rush to the High Court to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR Constitution, but would have to avail of a remedy by way of a election petition which is a statutory remedy. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners was also referred by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamuthu (supra).
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnusamy v. the Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others3, has held that improper rejection of a nomination paper cannot be subject of the writ of certiorari or mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar versus Vinod and others in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15393 of 2024 disposed off on 10.09.2024 held that once elections are announced they should not be interfered with and after the election the only remedy is to file election petition and the rejection of a nomination paper 3 (1952) 1 SCC in 94
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 103172 of 2024 HC-KAR is definitely one of the grounds that can be raised in the election petition.
13. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners without availing the remedy, have filed the writ petition. In view of the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, if so, desired.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed off.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA : Paras 1 to 3 kmv : Paras 4 to end CT: UMD