Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Anni vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 106945 of 2024
C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP
No.106948/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 106945 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 106947 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 106948 OF 2024
IN WP NO.106945/2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ASHOK M. JODATTINAVAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUMBARAKOPPA, TQ: ALNAVARA,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
2. MURAGESH M. INAMDHAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALNAVARA HULIKERE,
TQ: ALNAVARA, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
VN
BADIGER AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BENCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-01.
2. KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NO.18, KRISHIK SAMAJA,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER/ASSISTANT,
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
ALNAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-403702.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 106945 of 2024
C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP
No.106948/2024
4. TALUK KRISHIK SAMAJA,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
ALNAVAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT-403702.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. NITIN RAMESH &
SRI. LINGESH KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES FOR R2;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
1. ISSUE IT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 25/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO HOLD ELECTIONS ONLY AFTER ISSUING
MEMBERSHIP TO THE NEWLY FORMED TALUK KRISHI SAMAJ IN
TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 12/09/2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
IN WP NO.106947/2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MARUTI S/O. YAMANAPPA ANNI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANTURA, TQ: TEREDALA,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-583231.
2. NAVEEN G. BADRI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TEREDALA, TQ: TEREDALA,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-583231.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 106945 of 2024
C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP
No.106948/2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-01.
2. KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NO.18, KRISHIK SAMAJA,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER/ASSISTANT,
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
TERADALA TALUK, BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT-583231.
4. TALUK KRISHIK SAMAJA,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
TERADALA TALUK, BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. NITIN RAMESH &
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES FOR R2;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
1. ISSUE IT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 25/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO. 2.
2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO HOLD ELECTIONS ONLY AFTER ISSUING
MEMBERSHIP TO THE NEWLY FORMED TALUK KRISHI SAMAJ IN
TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 12/09/2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
IN WP NO.106948/2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GURUBASAYYA S/O. MAHADEVAYYA PUJERA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JALIKATTI, TALLUR, TQ: YARAGATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 106945 of 2024
C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP
No.106948/2024
2. BASAVARAJ S/O. BALANAIKA KADABI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JALIKATTI, TALLUR, TQ: YARAGATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-01.
2. KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NO.18, KRISHIK SAMAJA,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER/
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
YARAGATTI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590001.
4. TALUK KRISHIK SAMAJA,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
YARAGATTI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. NITIN RAMESH &
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES FOR R2;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
1. ISSUE IT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 25/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO HOLD ELECTIONS ONLY AFTER ISSUING
MEMBERSHIP TO THE NEWLY FORMED TALUK KRISHI SAMAJ IN
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 106945 of 2024
C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP
No.106948/2024
TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 12/09/2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. These petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the Notification dated 25.10.2024 vide Annexure-'J' issued by respondent No.2-Krishi Samaja and consequently to issue a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent No.2-Krishi Samaja to hold elections only after issuing membership to the newly formed Talukas in terms of the resolution dated 12.09.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are Lifetime Members of the respondent No.2-Krishi Samaja in the newly formed Alnavara Taluk (with respect to W.P. No.106945/2024), Terdal Taluk (with respect to W.P. -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 No.106947/2024), and Yaragatti Taluk (with respect to W.P. No.106948/2024).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No.2-Krishi Samaj was established to render services to the agriculturists/farmers on the grassroots taluka level by enlightening the farmers with the latest technology, training, skills, skill development and knowledge regarding farming and other activities related to farming and agriculture. As per the bye-laws of respondent No.2, every Taluk Samaj consists of Lifetime Members and these Members elect 15 Directors to the Krishi Samaj who, in turn, elect amongst themselves the President, Secretary and Treasurer and a representative. Pursuant thereto, the Director of each Taluk will represent the respective Taluk in the District Samaj. The Directors of various Taluks elect Directors of the District Samaj. Respondent No.2 consists of Directors elected from 31 Districts across the State and the Directors will elect Administrative President for respondent -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 No.2 in which the Minister of Agriculture would be the President of the respondent No.2-Krishi Samaj.
5. It is further contended and, as per the by-law of the respondent No.2-Krishi Samaj, the membership fee was increased from Rs.110/- to Rs.555/- with the approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Pursuant thereto the President of respondent No.2 had ordered for conducting elections to the Samaj. This being the state of affairs, writ petitions came to be filed by some of the members in W.P. No.19978/2015, W.P. No.19946/2015, W.P. No.20197/2015, and W.P. No.24594/15 seeking to quash the election notification. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 directed respondent No.2 to conduct the election in accordance with the bye- laws within a period of six months from the date of the order. The election to respondent No.2-Krishi Samaj was not conducted since last eight years and the voters list was not revised.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024
6. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the responsibility of respondent No.2 to establish Taluk Samaj in the newly formed Talukas, invite the enrollment of new members, provide opportunity to the Taluk Level Members to elect their representatives, but since 2016 the very same office bearers are continued in various Taluk Level Samaj. There is no new enrollment of Lifetime Members in the Taluk Samaj. So also, there is no revision of the voters' list and no fresh enrollment of Members in the Taluk Samaj. It is further contended that there are 19 Taluk Samajas which have less than 50 members in the Samaj.
7. This being the state of affairs, it is contended that petitioner approached respondent No.2-Krishi Samaj to redress their grievance and resolved to hold elections after establishing Taluk Samaj by including fresh membership in the newly formed Taluks and by revising the voters' list in the Taluk Samaj. It is further contended that despite the orders passed in the aforementioned petitions, respondent -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 No.2 approached this Court for extension of time to conduct the elections and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023 extended the time to conduct elections. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that pursuant to the extension being granted, respondent No.2 has proceeded to issue Notification dated 25.10.2024 which is impugned herein announcing elections for Taluk Samaj to be conducted on 15.12.2024 and election to the District Samaj to be conducted on 16.01.2025. The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of this notification, notifying elections to the Taluk Level and the District Level, as the participation of the petitioners in these three taluks and other 19 taluks would not be represented as there is no voters' list made and no Taluka Samaj members are enrolled as required number of members in this Taluk level Samaj.
8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the very purpose of establishing respondent No.2 was with an intention to empower the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 farmer fraternity by providing them agricultural benefits and other modern technological benefits for betterment of their growth of crops and agriculture and farming activities. He further contends that the voters' list in the Taluk Samaj has not been revised since 2016. The newly formed Taluks do not have the enrollment of lifetime members which is required to conduct elections, who would then represent in the District Level which would benefit the farmers. Therefore, there is no proper representation, no proper enrollment of the farmers in the Taluk Level Samajas. It is further contended that the bye-laws of respondent No.2 requires that the Taluk Samaj must have minimum 45 Members and those 45 Members would, in turn, elect 15 Members as Office Bearers and Directors, but more than 19 Talukas across the state does not have the required number of Members and there are less than 50 Members in the 19 Talukas. Therefore, the respondent could not have proceeded further to conduct election when 19 Talukas do not have the required number of Members as per the bye- laws.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024
9. Under the circumstances, these 19 Talukas would be unrepresented and they would not get any benefit for the farmers of those Talukas. It is further contended that this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions had directed the respondent to hold election in terms of the bye-laws and thereafter, a General Body Meeting was conducted on 12.09.2024 and it was resolved that the election would be held only after revising the voters' list by establishing Taluk Level Samajas in the newly formed Talukas. Having not done, the required enrollment to the Taluk Level Samajas and the 19 Talukas having less than 50 Members, the conducting of elections or announcing of the election without compliance with regard to the bye-laws and the direction of this Court in the aforementioned cases is illegal, arbitrary and hence the same requires to be set aside. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court, due to the inaction, arbitrariness and illegality committed by respondent No.2 in not enrolling the members to the 19
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 Talukas which would go unrepresented and their benefits would be deprived to the farmers of these Talukas.
10. Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed statement of objections. Learned counsel, Sri. Nitin Ramesh representing respondent No.2 contends that, at the outset, the petition is not maintainable and denies the contentions of the petitioners' counsel. He contends that there are totally 234 talukas that would be going for elections, and only 6 Talukas have a range of zero-to-six members and these six Talukas viz., Terdal, Hulsuru, Dandeli, Alnavara, Mulki and Yadrami, have been excluded from the election process as it is opposed to the 2013 bye-laws of the Samaja. It is also contended by the learned counsel that, out of 240 Talukas, 234 will go to polls excluding six Talukas in view of there being no membership of 15 lifetime members as contemplated in the bye-laws.
11. Respondent No.2 has given an undertaking that they will complete the election process as soon as the Members are enrolled i.e. 15 Lifetime Members in these six
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 Talukas. It is also undertaken that respondent No.2 would take steps for fresh Life Membership and enrollment of Members to these six Talukas and, as per the requirement of minimum of 15 Lifetime Members are met, the elections would be conducted to these Talukas. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable on another ground for the reason that the calendar of events has already been published by the respondent in accordance with 2013 bye-laws. He contends that once the calendar of events is published, normally, the Writ Courts would not interfere under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, as per Chapter Seven of the bye-laws, even the President and District Representatives of the newly elected six Taluka Committees would also have a representation in the District Level Committee. Hence the apprehension of the petitioners that the petitioners will be
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 left out without any remedy for the next five years or till the next round of election, may not be correct as their representation would be taken into consideration by their District Level Committee. Learned counsel respondent No.2 further contends that, as per the bye-laws, the Taluka Level Committee must comprise a minimum of 15 Lifetime Members as per Chapter 2 Clause 7.3. Hence, in the absence of 15 Lifetime Members in a given Taluka, holding of elections in that Taluka would be against the bye-laws. Even assuming for the sake of argument, if these Talukas are permitted to enroll Members, and Members are enrolled, then also they would be ineligible for the want of lifetime members to be holding office for 12 months as required under the bye-laws which is contemplated in Chapter 7 Clause 1, which states that unless the Lifetime Members are Members for a minimum of 12 months, they would not get their voting rights to cast their vote.
13. Under the circumstances, he contends that the present petition is filed only with a purpose of stalling the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 elections and not with any intent to benefit the farmers of the six Talukas. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petitions aforesaid were filed in the year 2015 and the order came to be passed in 2023. Hence, there is a huge delay in conducting elections and those people, who have assumed the office of the Taluka, are still continuing as Members of the Talukas. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2, that, in the absence of minimum numbers of Members, the quorum cannot be formed and the Taluka Level Samaja cannot even take a decision, and the same would be ineffective and flagrant violation of the bye-laws of the Society.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also controverts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to there being minimum of 45 members in the Samaja to be not correct. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, it is not 19 talukas, which would not be participating in the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 elections, but it is only six talukas which would not be participating in the elections due to the requirement of minimum members not being available and minimum Lifetime Members not being available in the said Talukas. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, now, the calendar of events has already been published for conducting the election to Taluka Level Samajas as well as the District Level Samajas, if the election process is now interfered, the entire 234 talukas will be disturbed only for the ineligibility and want of Lifetime Members of six Talukas which, if permitted, will affect the 234 Taluks going into polls.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that he has given an undertaking, as per this statement, that these six talukas which are not having the minimum Lifetime Members would be considered for fresh Membership and so also fresh Life Membership and as soon as they meet the minimum requirement of 15 Lifetime Members, the elections would be conducted for these
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 talukas and their representation would be taken for consideration in the District Level Committee and they would not be deprived of any of the benefits for the coming years and they would be counted for the next round of elections on the basis of the membership and the 15 Lifetime Members available in the Taluk. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also contends that the petitioners have not challenged the bye-laws and the covenants of the bye- laws which prescribes the minimum standards and minimum requirements for participating in the election and unless the same is challenged this petition cannot be entertained merely for the asking of the petitioners.
16. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State supports the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he also substantiates that, as per the bye-law, there is a requirement of 15 lifetime members in the Taluka, and unless the Lifetime Members have spent a minimum of 12 months' prior to the elections, they would not get the voting
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 rights. He supports the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 with regard to the entire election would be disturbed merely for the sake of six Talukas who do not fulfill their required criteria as per the bye-laws.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another1. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the same issue of elections, at para 37, has held as under:
"37. We would indicate that the restraint, self- imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no 1 2023 SCC OnLIne SC 1140
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof. In the context of providing appropriate succour to the aggrieved litigant at the appropriate time10, the learned Single Judge acted rightly. In all fairness, we must note that the learned ASG, during the course of arguments, did not contest the power per se of the High Court to issue the directions it did, except that the same amounted to denying the Appellants their discretion. As stated hereinbefore, we are satisfied that in view of the 1968 Order, the Appellants' discretion was not unbridled, and rather, it was guided by the 1968 Order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalpana Mehta V. Union of India2, on paragraphs 44, 45 & 46 number 44 of the said judgment which read as under:2
(2018)7 SCC 1
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 "44. Recently, in Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], the Court, after referring to Premium Granites v. State of T.N. [Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691], M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. [M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592], State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 875] and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1021], held: (R. Krishnamurthy case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], SCC p. 809, para 33) "33. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noonday that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion."
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024
45. At this juncture, we think it apt to clearly state that the judicial restraint cannot and should not be such that it amounts to judicial abdication and judicial passivism. The Judiciary cannot abdicate the solemn duty which the Constitution has placed on its shoulders i.e. to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The constitutional courts cannot sit in oblivion when fundamental rights of individuals are at stake. Our Constitution has conceived the constitutional courts to act as defenders against illegal intrusion of the fundamental rights of individuals. The Constitution, under its aegis, has armed the constitutional courts with wide powers which the courts should exercise, without an iota of hesitation or apprehension, when the fundamental rights of individuals are in jeopardy. Elucidating on the said aspect, this Court in Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. [Virendra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 447] has observed: (AIR p. 454, para 34) "34. ... We have upon us the whole armour of the Constitution and walk from henceforth in its enlightened ways, wearing the breastplate of its protecting provisions and flashing the flaming sword of its inspiration."
46. While interpreting fundamental rights, the constitutional courts should remember that whenever
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 an occasion arises, the courts have to adopt a liberal approach with the object to infuse lively spirit and vigour so that the fundamental rights do not suffer. When we say so, it may not be understood that while interpreting fundamental rights, the constitutional courts should altogether depart from the doctrine of precedents but it is the obligation of the constitutional courts to act as sentinel on the qui vive to ardently guard the fundamental rights of individuals bestowed upon by the Constitution. The duty of this Court, in this context, has been aptly described in K.S. Srinivasan v. Union of India [K.S. Srinivasan v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 419] wherein it was stated : (AIR p. 433, para 50) "50. ... All I can see is a man who has been wronged and I can see a plain way out. I would take it."
Relying on the aforesaid judgments, in support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow the petitions.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents including the learned Additional Government Advocate.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024
19. The facts of the present case is that the elections are scheduled to be conducted for 240 Talukas, out of which six Talukas for want of the required lifetime members are not being permitted to participate in the elections. However, it is contended by the petitioners' counsel that 19 Talukas are not being represented in the elections and are not permitted to participate in the elections, whereas learned counsel for respondent No.2, has given an affirmative statement by an affidavit of respondent No.2 that it is only six Talukas which would not be permitted to go in for the elections for want of necessary requirements of the covenants of the bye-laws, and even for those six Talukas as soon as the requirement of minimum 15 Life Members are met, the elections would be conducted for these Talukas and a representative of the newly elected six Talukas as and when conducted in an expeditious manner would have the representation in the District Level Committee. Therefore, the apprehension that the petitioners of the six Talukas would be left without any remedy would be addressed by respondent No.2. Upon carefully going
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 through the provisions of the bye-laws, it is relevant to extract the necessary requirements of the bye-laws which is available in the bye-laws. Chapter Two, Clause 7.3 reads as under:
7. ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ PÁAiÀÄPÁj ¸À«Äw:
1. x x x x
2. x x x x
3. ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀȶPÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdUÀ¼À PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw JAzÀgÉ gÁdåzÀ DAiÀiÁ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄUÀ¼° À è EgÀĪÀ DfêÀ ¸Àz¸ À ÀåjAzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁzÀ 15 (ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ) d£ÀjAzÀ M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ¸À«Äw.
Chapter Seven, Clause 1.3 of the bye-laws reads as under:
"C) x x x x.
«.¸ÀÆ:- vÁ®ÆèPÀÄUÀ¼° À g è ÀĪÀ PÀȶPÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ dgÀÄUÀĪÀ ¤PÀl 12 (ºÀ£ÉßgÀqÀÄ) wAUÀ¼À ¥ÀǪÀð zÀ°è ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ¸Àz¸ À ÀåvÀé ¥ÀqÉzÀ CfêÀ ¸Àz¸ À ÀåjUÉ (¥Àºt À  EgÀĪÀ gÉÊvÀ) ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
x x x x"
Therefore, under these provisions of the bye-laws, it is apparently clear that, there is a minimum requirement of 15 Lifetime Members in the Taluka Level Committee and also there is a requirement of the Lifetime Member to have spent in at least minimum 12 months as Member prior to
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 the conducting of the election. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by any of the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961'). Therefore, they would be bound by the Act of 1961.
Unless the requirements of the bye-laws are met by the Members of the Talukas, they cannot claim to have a fundamental right or statutory without fulfilling the necessary requirements of the bye-laws. Even if this court agrees with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners to direct respondent No.2 to conduct a Membership drive and provide Membership to the Talukas, which are not represented and not permitted to participate in the elections, by prescribing a time span, I am afraid that the petitioners would not be able to participate in the Election for the simple reason that they will still be barred by the provisions the Chapter 7, Clause 1 of the bye-laws which requires minimum of 12 months as Member prior to the conducting of the election.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024
20. It is, no doubt, true that, while considering these kind of matters, this Court should take into consideration the fundamental rights of the parties, moreso when the farmers are involved who are not literate and having no worldly knowledge with regard to the membership drive, the contents of the bye-laws and the requirements of the bye-laws. Therefore, the judicial review and interference requires to be formulated in a manner where there is some leeway and liberal approach that is shown to the petitioners who are farmers. The powers that are vested with this Court under Article 226 is to see that the fundamental rights are not violated and equal participation is provided to all the members who are Members of the taluka in accordance with the bye-laws. What needs to be kept in mind while considering these matters is, that this Court cannot go beyond the purview of bye-laws which governs the petitioners to provide a discretionary remedy to the petitioners.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024
21. In the present case on hand, the earlier round of aforementioned writ petitions were filed sometime in the year 2015. The petitioners have not taken any steps to make any enrollment or initiate any steps with respondent No.2 for enrollment of its Members, Lifetime Members to participate in the elections. Even during pendency of this petition, no initiation or attempt was made foreseeing the elections could happen at any time. But, after the writ petitions came to be disposed off and the calendar of events were announced, the present petitions are filed. No doubt, it is true that there may be some force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their rights would be deprived and the knowledge benefits would be deprived to the 19 talukas and the farmers coming from those Talukas, but the fact remains, that unless they are Members of the Taluka Level Samajas, as contemplated in the bye-laws and fulfilling the necessary requirements, they cannot be permitted to participate in the elections moreso, in the present case, respondent No.2 two having given an undertaking that they would consider expeditious
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 enrollment of Members in these six Talukas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it is not 19 Talukas, it is only six Talukas and the remaining 13 Talukas are permitted to participate in the elections, and has filed a memo to that effect today before this Court. Under the circumstances, it would be six Talukas which would not be permitted to participate in the elections as they do not fulfill the requirements of the bye-laws as stated earlier as per Chapter 2 Clause 7 sub-clause 3, and Chapter 7 Clause 1.
22. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to a matter where the issue related to the use of a symbol for the upcoming General Elections of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. No doubt, in the said petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court had set aside the election notification and ordered fresh notification to be issued. In the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts are entirely different from the present
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 case on hand. This is evident from paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"12. He urged the Court to take note of the fact that despite the learned Single Judge having passed directions well before the commencement of even the filing of nominations, upheld by the learned Division Bench, which again, was before the starting of the nomination process, and despite there being a contempt case pending before the learned Single Judge, which was adjourned on prayer made by the Appellants, citing the pendency of the present appeal, the Appellants had not complied with the orders of the High Court. In this backdrop, submitted learned counsel, to take a stand before this Court that now due to efflux of time, no relief can be granted to R1, was clear dishonest conduct. It was submitted that this Court would not let a just cause be defeated only because of delay occasioned by the other Side and the Appellants cannot take the advantage of such delay caused by them to the detriment of R1's bonafide, legitimate and genuine claim.
At paragraph No.22 also the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"22. Elections to any office/body are required to be free, fair and transparent. Elections lie at the core of democracy. The authority entrusted by law to hold/conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence/ consideration. It is surprising that the Union Territory of Ladakh not only denied R 1 the Plough symbol, but even upon timely intervention by the learned Single Judge, has left no stone unturned not only to
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 resist but also frustrate a cause simply by efflux of time."
So also at paragraph No.38, which reads as under:
"38. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge, further expounded by the learned Division Bench, leaves no doubt that the relief sought by R 1 was required to be granted and, accordingly, the same was granted by the High Court. The stark factor which stares us in the face is that well before and well in time, by way of the writ petition, R 1 had approached the Court of first instance (the learned Single Judge), for the reliefs, which have been found due to them ultimately, and upheld by the Appellate Court (the learned Division Bench). It is the Appellants, who by virtue of sheer non-compliance of the High Court's orders, be it noted, without any stay, can alone be labelled responsible for the present imbroglio. These stark facts cannot be broadly equated with other hypothetical scenarios, wherein the facts may warrant a completely hands- off approach."
23. In the present case on hand, the facts are totally different. The petitioners have not made any efforts to approach this Court well in advance for redressal of their grievance for non enrollment of members to the talukas, for non enrollment of Lifetime Members and have approached this Court after the calendar of events have been issued. Therefore there is a stark difference between the judgment
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts of the present case. The said judgment in my respectful opinion would not be applicable to the present facts of the case.
24. In the present case, in view of the undertaking having been given by the respondent No.2 with regard to enrollment of Membership to the six Talukas and the election that would be conducted to the six Talukas after fulfilling the requirement as per the bye-laws stated hereinabove and so also their representation as the District Level Committee, it would not be appropriate for this Court to set aside the Calendar of Events issued and the elections to be conducted for the remaining 234 Talukas Samajas. Under the circumstances, taking into consideration the undertaking given by respondent No.2, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition in the following manner:
ORDER
i) The Writ petitions are disposed off.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888
WP No. 106945 of 2024
C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP
No.106948/2024
ii) The respondents the shall continue with the
election process for the 234 Taluka
Samajas as per Annexure-' J', including the 13 talukas stated by the petitioner in this petition.
iii) However, respondent No.2 number two shall within one month from the date of conclusion of election at Annexure-J, make all efforts to enroll members and also Lifetime Members to the six Talukas viz., Terdal, Hulsuru, Dandeli, Alnavara, Mulki and Yadrami.
iv) Respondent number two shall conduct election to these six talukas immediately after the fulfillment of the requirement of the bye-laws of these six talukas by notifying the talukas.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KMS, CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9