Karnataka High Court
Sri. Halesha G S vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.369 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.306 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
IN W.P. No.369/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. S.R. SHANTH KUMAR
S/O. S.M. RAJA SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT SOMASHETTYHALLI,
LINGADAHALLI POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRIT - 577 221.
2. S. BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O. SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M NALLUR POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. U.G. NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE UJJIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT SOMASHETTYHALLI,
LINGADAHALLI POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
4. G.H. RAMESH
S/O. G.B. HALESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT SOMASHETTYHALLI SIDDAPUR,
LINGADHALLI POST,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
5. SYED NAYAZ
S/O. SYED ABBAUS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NALLUR CAMP POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
6. BASAVARAJ .H
S/O. LATE HORAKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NALLUR CAMP POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
7. POORNIMA
W/O. SIDDARAPPA C.N.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT AKKALIKATTE VILLAGE,
AGARABANNIHATTI POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
8. SURNA G.S.
W/O. RAJAPPA M.B.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT LINGADAHALLI POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
9. SHANTHARAJU .V
S/O. VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT LINGADAHALLI POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
10. SAKKU BAI .T
W/O. RAVI KUMAR .H
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT N BASAVANAHALLI,
LINGADAHALLI POST,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
11. ASTAQ AHMED
S/O. LATE AKBAR SHARIF SAB,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NALLUR CAMP POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
12. K.H. MANJUNATH
S/O. HANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NALLUR EDIGARA BEEDA,
NALLUR POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577221.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A. & SRI VARUN J. PATIL ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560052.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY/ELECTION OFFICER,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BHAVAN,
ROOM NO.52 & 53, P.B.ROAD,
KAROOR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
4. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE
ELECTION AUTHORITY,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
3RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
OFFICE AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
VIDHYA NAGAR,
4TH BUS STOP, 12TH CROSS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
6. RETURNING OFFICER/ CO-OPERATIVE
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
PLD BANK BUILDING,
KAGATURU ROAD,
CHANNAGIRI - 577213.
7. THE TAHSILDAR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
CHANNAGIRI - 577213.
8. THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NALLUR,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 221
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1959.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3, R-5 TO R-7;
SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
ELECTION AUTHORITY R-3, 4, AND 6 TO CONTINUE WITH THE
ELECTION PROCESS OF THE R-8 SOCIETY IN TERMS OF
CALENDAR OF EVENTS AT ANNEXURE-A PUBLISHED ON
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
24.12.2024 FROM THE STAGE IT WAS STOPPED AND ISSUE
FRESH DATES FOR ALLOTMENT OF SYMBOLS AND POLLING DATE
AND COMPLETE THE ELECTION PROCESSES ON OR BEFORE
25.01.2025.
IN W.P. NO. 306/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HALESHA G.S.
S/O. G. SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
LINGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
LINGADHALLI POST,
CHANANIGIR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577221.
2. G.B. DHANAJAYA
S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA .G.S
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
LINGADHALALI VILLGE,
LINGADHALLI POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577221.
3. UJJINI S.S.
S/O. M. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
LINGADHALLI VILLAGE,
LINGADAHALLI POST,
CHANANGIRI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577221.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHIVU L.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
BENGALRU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY,
TTMC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR A BLOCK,
SRI KENGAL HANUMANTHAYA ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
DAVANAGERE-577001.
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577221.
5. PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKRA
SANGHA (R), NALLURU,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577221
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R-1, R-3 & R-4;
SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CALENDAR OF EVENTS IN DR/DVG/CHUNAVANE/RIAANE-
AAMAMSACHU/CR-113/2024-25 DATED 24.12.2024 ISSUED BY
THE RETURNING OFFICER VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
In WP No.369/2025, the petitioners are seeking a direction directing the election authority-respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to continue with the election process of respondent No.8-society in terms of the calendar of events at Annexure-A published on 24.12.2024 from the stage it was stopped and issue fresh dates for allotment of symbols and polling date and complete the election process on or before 25.01.2025.
2. In WP No.306/2025, the petitioners are seeking to quash the calendar of events dated 24.12.2024 issued by the Returning Officer and the mandamus directing the respondents to hold the election strictly as per law.
3. Respondent No.8 in WP No.369/2025 is respondent No.5 in WP No.306/2025, the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society, Nallur referred to as the Praathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakara Sangha, Nalluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'society') is registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies -8- NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Act, 1959 ('the KCS Act, 1959' for short). The undisputed facts in both the petitions are that the term of the existing board of society expires on 27.01.2025, as per Section 28- B of the KCS Act, 1959 since the term of the existing board of the society expires, election has to be conducted.
The election authority appointed the Returning Officer to conduct the election of the society before the expiry of the existing term of the board of society. The Returning Officer published calendar of events on 24.12.2024 scheduling the dates from 29.12.2024 to 12.01.2025.
Nomination to contest the election timeline was given from 29.12.2024 to 04.01.2025. The petitioners in WP No.369/2025 filed nomination to contest the election and the final list of nomination was issued by the returning officer on 05.01.2025.
4. The Returning Officer received 36 nominations from the borrower constituency and 4 nominations from non-borrowing constituencies, totaling 40 nomination papers were filed from 29.12.2024 to 04.01.2025. The -9- NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Returning Officer on 05.01.2025 rejected two nomination papers and on 06.01.2025 around 12 nominations have been withdrawn before 3.00 p.m. Further, the Returning Officer issued the final list of the contesting candidates on 06.01.2025 and final list of the contesting candidates was issued and the Returning Officer was required to allot the symbols to the final contesting candidates between 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. on 06.01.2025. It is at this stage, the facts in both the writ petition differs.
5. The case of the petitioners in WP No.369/2025 is that when the process of allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer was taking place, a rival group of the petitioners entered the room of the Returning Officer and abused the Returning Officer and threatened the Returning Officer not to continue with the election process. It is further stated by the petitioners in WP No.369/2025 that the petitioners though restricted the rival members not to create the nuisance and stall the election process, the Returning Officer was not allowed to conduct her official
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 duty and that under the pressure of the rival associates and Tahsildar, the Returning Officer has issued the circular by postponing the election of the respondent-society indefinitely on the reason that the election cannot be conducted due to law and order situation and also as per the direction of the Tahsildar. The order of the Returning Officer finds place at Annexure-G in WP No.369/2025. It is further stated that the petitioners had given a letter on 06.01.2025 to the Returning Officer requesting to continue the election process, in spite of which, the process was not concluded which made the petitioners to approach this Court in this writ petition.
6. The case of the petitioners in WP No.306/2025 is that on 17.12.2024, the petitioners had submitted a letter to the Returning Officer that the members of the society had no prior intimation from the society about the election to be held and despite receiving the letter by the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer proceeded to publish the calendar of events. It is further stated that the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 entire election process has been violated and the election process was proceeded illegally, the Returning Officer has rightly postponed the elections.
7. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and this Court on 10.01.2025, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, passed the following order:
"IN WP No.369/2025Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 to 7.
Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.4 Issue emergent notice to respondent No.8 returnable by 29.01.2025.IN WP No.306/2025
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.2.
Issue emergent notice to respondent No.5 returnable by 29.01.2025.
Heard Sri Jaykumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP No.369/2015 and Sri Shivu L.V. learned counsel appearing for
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 the petitioners in WP No.306/2025 and learned AGA for the State.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the election of respondent No.8- society is required to be held before the expiry of the term of the existing Board of respondent No.8-society as per Section 28-B of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 ('KCS Act, 1959' for short). The Election Officer-respondent No.3 has appointed respondent No.6-the Returning Officer to conduct the election of respondent No.8-society. Returning Officer-respondent No.8 issued calendar of events for conducting election of respondent No.8-society scheduling the dates from 29.12.2024 to 12.01.2025.
Pursuant to the calendar of events, the petitioners being the eligible members of respondent No.8-society filed nomination to contest the elections. The Returning Officer received 36 nominations from borrower constituency and 4 nominations from non- borrowing constituency, totally 40 nomination papers were filed from 29.12.2024 to 04.01.2025.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Learned senior counsel submits that the Returning Officer on 05.01.2025 has rejected the nomination papers and on 06.01.2025, around 12 nominations have been withdrawn around 3.00 p.m. The Returning Officer issued final list of contesting candidates on 06.01.2025 at 3.00 p.m. As per calendar of events, Returning Officer is required to allot symbols to the final contesting candidates. During the process of allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer, a rival group of the petitioners entered and untold incident took place on 06.01.2025. The Returning Officer on 06.01.2025 as per Annexure-G issued an endorsement stating that the elections cannot be conducted due to the law and order situation as per the directions of the Tahsildar.
Learned senior counsel, drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 14-H of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1960 ('the KCS Rules, 1960' for short), submits that only under certain exceptions, the elections may be possibly postponed as provided under Rules 14-H and 14-J of the KCS Rules, 1960. It is submitted that the Returning Officer action is in complete violation of Section 28-B(1) which
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 mandates that the election of the Board is required to be conducted before the expiry of the existing Board.
Learned AGA drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 14 states that due to sufficient cause, the Returning Officer having jurisdiction over such polling station, and in light of proviso to Rule 14, wherein the report has been obtained from the Tashildar to the effect that the poll has been interrupted and as such, election cannot be conducted for the reason to pass such an endorsement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.306/2025 submits that the entire commencement of the conducting election in the respondent No.5-society is in gross violation of law and principles and hence the calendar of events has to be quashed and the entire process has to be redone strictly adhering to the provisions of law. It is further submitted that the petitioners on 06.01.2025 having given representation to the Tahsildar to cancel the election as there were gross violations and illegalities in the procedure of conducting the elections and the Returning Officer has rightly
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 postpone the election as per the orders of the Tahsildar.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether necessary directions need to be issued to the Election authorities to continue the election process of respondent No.8-society in terms of the calendar of events published on 24.12.2024 in the present facts and circumstances?
Rule 14-H of the KCS Rules, 1960 reads as under:
14-H. Adjournment of poll in emergencies.- (1) If at an election, the proceedings at any polling station or at the place fixed for the poll are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence, or if at an election it is not possible to take the poll at any polling station or such place on account of any natural calamity, or any other sufficient cause, the returning officer having jurisdiction over such polling station, or place, shall, with the prior approval of the Co- operative Election [Authority], announce an adjournment of the poll from that polling station or place to a date to be announced later, and where the poll is so adjourned by a
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 presiding officer, he shall forthwith inform the returning officer concerned:
Provided that a report or certificate shall be obtained from the police or Tahsildar to the effect that the poll has been interrupted or obstructed by risk or open violence.
(2) Whenever a poll is adjourned under sub-rule (1), the returning officer shall immediately report the circumstances to the [CEC), and shall, as soon as may be, with the previous approval of the Co-operative Election [Authority), appoint the day on which the poll from that polling station or place shall recommence, and fix the polling station or place at which and the hours during which the poll from that polling station or place shall be taken. The returning officer shall not count the votes cast at such election to the board until such adjourned poll from that polling station or place shall have been completed.
(3) In every such case as aforesaid; the Returning Officer shall announce in such manner as the Co-operative Election [Authority) may direct the date, place and hours of polling fixed under sub-rule (2).
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 (4) If the poll at any polling station is adjourned under sub-rule (1), the Returning Officer shall provide the presiding officer of the polling station at which such adjourned poll is held, with the sealed pocket containing the marked copy of the electoral roll and a new ballot box.
(5) The provisions of Rules 14-L to 14-0 and 14-Q to 14-X shall apply in relation to the conduct of adjourned poll as they apply in relation to the poll before it was so adjourned.
A plain reading of Rule 14-H indicates that there are certain exceptions where the elections may be postponed or provide in the given situations as contemplated and perusal of the material on record would indicate that there are no situations as contemplated under the above mentioned rules which may provide the Returning Officer with authority to adjourn the election process. Rule 14 emphasizes on the adjournment of the elections only in relation to the polling date and not any other date and such adjournment has to be subject to prior approval of the election authority.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 The election process has started and it has to be completed before 27.01.2025. The reason assigned by respondent No.6-Returning Officer to postpone the election is vague and without any sufficient cause, warranting interference by this Court and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly, directing the election authorities-respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 to continue the election process of respondent No.8-society at the stage, where it was halted and complete the entire election process as per the calendar events as per 24.12.2024. Respondent No.4-Election authorities is directed to adhere and see that the election process of respondent No.8-society is continue in terms of the calendar of events published on 24.12.2024. The results of the election scheduled on 12.01.2025 to be sent through a sealed cover and announcement of results would be on further orders of this Court. it is needless to observe that respondent No.1- State to provide all the protection for peaceful conduct of election on 12.01.2025.
Learned AGA is requested to communicate the order to the competent authority."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
8. This Court directed the election authorities to continue the election process of the society at the stage where it was halted and complete the election process as per the calendar of events dated 24.12.2024 and respondent No.4-election authority was further directed to adhere and see that the elections of society is continued in terms of calendar of events published on 24.12.2024 and conduct the election scheduled on 12.01.2025 and results of the elections scheduled on 12.01.2025 to be sent through a sealed cover and the announcement of the results would be made on further order of this Court.
9. Sri Jaykumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.369/2025 would urge the following grounds:
i. The Returning Officer acted under the undue influence and pressure of the MLA and the election process was interrupted without any legal basis and the Returning Officer did not have any authority to postpone the election.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 ii. Taking this Court to Section 28B of the KCS Act, 1959, it is submitted that the said section clearly mandates the completion of the entire election before the expiry of the existing board term and there are statutory obligation that cannot be deferred except under extraordinary circumstances prescribed by the law.
iii. That the provisions under Rules 14-H and 14-J of the KCS Rules, 1960 which govern the adjournment of polls on only in a situation of open violence, natural calamities and other emergency and that too prior approval of the election authority and does not apply to the instant case as no emergency or booth capturing occurred that would justify such an action.
iv. The action of postponing the election is an attempt to delay the process and to facilitate the appointment of an administrator.
v. It is submitted that the election process has already been completed and the stage is for
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 announcement of results and the results should be announced, aggrieved party is always at liberty to approach the Registrar by filing the election petition.
10. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel in WP No.309/2025 would urge the following grounds:
i. The representation submitted by the petitioners on 17.12.2024 to cancel the election as there was gross violation and illegalities in the procedure of conducting the elections, was not considered by the election officer.
ii. That there is a gross violation of the provision of KCS Act, 1959 and the members who have not completed one year of the membership have been given power to vote and the members who have been absent for the General Body Meetings have been allowed to file the nomination.
iii. During the scrutiny, the Returning Officer declared them to be eligible to contest the election. That
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 the records have been tampered which is clearly visible at Annexure-C that the members who have been marked 'absent' have been allowed to put whitener and re-sign on it as 'present'.
iv. As there was no prior intimation to the members of the society with regard to the conduct of election, there is utter violation of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960.
11. Having heard the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel at the bar, the point that arises for consideration is:
"1. Whether the Returning Officer had any authority to postpone the election after the issuance of the calendar of events, given that the election process was already under progress?
2. Whether the election officer was under an obligation to continue the election process before the expiry of the term of the board of the society?"
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. Section 28B of the KCS Act, 1959 reads as under:
"28B. Board to arrange for election.-
(1) The election of a Board, be conducted before the expiry of the term of the Board.
(2) The members of the board who have failed to make arrangements for election within the time limit specified in section 39-A, shall be deemed to have vacated their office on the last day of the time limit so specified and such members shall not be eligible for election as members of the board for a period of five years from the date of expiry of their term.
(3) The Administrator who shall assume charge under sub-section (5) of Section 28-A, shall, as early as possible but within a period of six months arrange for the constitution of a new board of the society in accordance with the Act, rules and the bye-laws:
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Provided that the Administrator so appointed shall not continue for a period beyond three months in respect of a society in co-operative credit structure."
14. The above provision clearly mandates that the election of the board must be conducted before the expiry of the existing board's term and this is the statutory obligation that cannot be deferred except under extraordinary circumstances prescribed by law.
15. Rules 14-H and 14-J of the KCS Rules, 1960 reads as under:
"14-H. Adjournment of poll in emergencies.-(1) If at an election, the proceedings at any polling station or at the place fixed for the poll are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence, or if at an election it is not possible to take the poll at any polling station or such place on account of any natural calamity, or any other sufficient cause, the returning officer having jurisdiction over such polling station, or place, shall, with the prior approval of the Co-operative Election Authority, announce an adjournment of the poll from that polling station or place to a date to be
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 announced later, and where the poll is so adjourned by a presiding officer, he shall forthwith inform the returning officer concerned:
Provided that a report or certificate shall be obtained from the police or Tahsildar to the effect that the poll has been interrupted or obstructed by risk or open violence.
(2) Whenever a poll is adjourned under sub-
rule (1), the returning officer shall immediately report the circumstances to the CEC, and shall, as soon as may be, with the previous approval of the Co-operative Election Authority, appoint the day on which the poll from that polling station or place shall recommence, and fix the polling station or place at which and the hours during which the poll from that polling station or place shall be taken. The returning officer shall not count the votes cast at such election to the board until such adjourned poll from that polling station or place shall have been completed.
(3) In every such case as aforesaid; the Returning Officer shall announce in such manner as the Co-operative Election Authority may direct the date, place and hours of polling fixed under sub-rule (2).
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 (4) If the poll at any polling station is adjourned under sub-rule (1), the Returning Officer shall provide the presiding officer of the polling station at which such adjourned poll is held, with the sealed pocket containing the marked copy of the electoral roll and a new ballot box.
(5) The provisions of Rules 14-L to 14-O and 14-Q to 14-X shall apply in relation to the conduct of adjourned poll as they apply in relation to the poll before it was so adjourned.
x x x
14-J. Adjournment of poll or
countermanding of election on the ground of booth capturing.-(1) If at any election.-
(i) booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll (hereinafter in this clause referred to as a place) in such a manner that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or
(ii) booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such a manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Co-operative Election Authority:
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Provided that a report or certificate shall be obtained from the police or Tahsildar to the effect that the result of the poll cannot be ascertained due to booth capturing which has taken place at that polling station or place.
(2) The Co-operative Election Authority shall, on the receipt of a report from the returning officer under sub-rule (1) and after taking all material circumstances into account, either.-
(i) declare that the poll at that polling station or place be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed on the notice board of the returning officer or the assistant returning officer if any, and on the notice board of the society; or
(ii) if satisfied that in view of the large number of polling stations or places involved in booth capturing, the result of the election is likely to be affected, or that booth capturing had affected counting of votes in such a manner as to affect the result of the election, countermand the election.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Explanation.-In this rule, the term "booth capturing" includes, among other things, all or any of the following activities, namely.-
(a) seizure of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons, making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers and doing of any other act which affects the orderly conduct of elections;
(b) taking possession of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons and allowing only his or their own supporters to exercise their right to vote and prevent others from free exercise of their right to vote;
(c) Coercing or intimidating or threatening directly or indirectly any member by any person or persons and preventing him from going to the polling station or a place fixed for the poll to cast his vote;
(d) seizure of a place for counting of votes by any person or persons, making the counting authorities surrender the ballot papers or voting machines and the doing of anything which affects the orderly counting of votes."
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
16. The aforesaid rules allow for adjournment of polling of the board's terms only in a situation of open violence, natural calamities or other emergency with prior approval of the cooperative election authority. The calendar of events was published on 24.12.2024 and for conducting of election, the schedule was from 29.12.2024 to 12.01.2025. The process had already begun, it is at that stage of allotting symbols, i.e., on 06.01.2025, the Returning Officer postponed the elections indefinitely sighting the law order and concern and following the directions of the Tahsildar contrary to the provisions of Section 28B of the KCS Act, 1959 and Rules 14-H and 14-J of the KCS Rules, 1960. The Returning Officer did not have any legal authority to postpone the election until the situation as mentioned under Rules 14-H and 14-J of the KCS Rules, 1960. The fact remains that there was an interference which was unlawful and the postponement of election after the calendar of events have been issued is a direct violation of Section 28-B of the KCS Act, 1959 which mandates that the election must have taken place before
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 the expiration of the existing board's term. The action of the Returning Officer undermines the purpose of the statutory framework that governs the elections. The contention of the petitioners in WP No.306/2025 is that the violation of provisions of KCS Act, 1959, the members were not issued with the notice of the election. Rule 13-D is an electoral process. The preparation of electoral roll under Rule 13-D (2-A) of the KCS Rules, 1960 is an intermediate stage in the process of election. The Apex in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others1 (Ashok Kumar) has held at paragraph Nos.21 and 25 as under:
"21. A third category is not far to visualise. Under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 an election petition cannot be filed before the date of election, i.e., the date on which the returned candidate is declared elected. During the process of election something may have happened which would provide a good ground for the election being set aside. Purity of election process has to be preserved. One of the means for achieving this end is to deprive a returned candidate of the success 1 (2000) 8 SCC 216
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 secured by him by resorting to means and methods falling foul of the law of elections. But by the time the election petition may be filed and judicial assistance secured, material evidence may be lost. Before the result of the election is declared assistance of Court may be urgently and immediately needed to preserve the evidence without in any manner intermeddling with or thwarting the progress of election. So also there may be cases where the relief sought for may not interfere or intermeddle with the process of the election but the jurisdiction of the Court is sought to be invoked for correcting the process of election taking care of such aberrations as can be taken care of only at that moment failing which the flowing stream of election process may either stop or break its bounds and spill over. The relief sought for is to let the election process proceed in conformity with law and the facts and circumstances be such that the wrong done shall not be undone after the result of the election has been announced subject to overriding consideration that the Court's intervention shall not interrupt, delay or postpone the ongoing election proceedings. The facts of the case at hand provide one such illustration with which we shall deal with a little later. We proceed to refer a few other decided cases of this Court cited at the Bar.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
X X X
25. Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. is a case relating to municipal elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Barely one week before the voting was scheduled to commence, in the writ petitions complaining of defects in the electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies and arbitrary reservation of constituencies for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, the High Court passed interim order stopping the election process. This Court quashed such interim orders and observed that if the election is imminent or well under way, the Court should not intervene to stop the election process. If this is allowed to be done, no election will ever take place because someone or the other will always find some excuse to move the Court and stall the elections. The importance of holding elections at regular intervals cannot be overemphasised. If holding of elections is allowed to stall on the complaint of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be done to crores of other voters who have a right to elect their representatives to the democratic bodies."
17. The Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another Vs.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 State of Maharashtra and others2 (Sant Sadguru) analyzed the scheme of Maharashtra cooperative society rules concerning with the preparation of electoral and processing of filing objections to the ineligible voters list and held that the electoral preparation of an electoral is an intermediate stage in the election and has held at paragraph Nos.41 and 44 as under:
"41. The provisions of the Rules, 1960, in so far as the conduct of elections are complete code in itself. The said judgment is indeed rendered interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Co- Operative Societies Act and Rules. It is also true that the procedures under the said Act and Rules in preparing the electoral roll are different from the one provided in the Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960. However, the fact that both enactments provide an adjudicatory mechanism before finalizing the final electoral roll and also the fact that an independent authority other than the co-operative society is assigned with the role of preparing the electoral rolls and conducting elections, the underlying philosophy in both Rules in so far as conducting elections to the board of a co-operative society is by and large the same.2
(2001) 8 SCC 509
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
44. In the light of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that as a general principle, the writ petition to challenge the electoral roll published for holding elections to the board of a co-operative society is not maintainable. However, this Court is not holding that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is completely ruled out. There may be situations, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the High Court in the exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have to step into avert a total miscarriage of justice in preparing the electoral roll. It is not desirable to spell out those circumstances in this petition. Suffice it to say that the facts obtained in this petition do not warrant such exercise."
18. In the context of question whether the writ petition is maintainable when the challenge is made to the procedure initiated for preparing the electoral roll, the situation or the circumstances made by the petitioners in challenge for preparing of electoral roll cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution, as in a given case though there has been several contentions have been raised, that could not be a ground for this Court
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 to interfere under Article 226 when the enactment provides for adjudicatory mechanism before finalizing the final electoral and also the fact that an independent authority under the Act is assigned with the role of preparing the electoral and conducting elections. It is well settled principles of law that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute only must be availed of. This rule has been stated by Willes, J. in the case of the Wolverhampton New Waterworks Company Vs. Hawkesford3 has held as under:
"There are three clauses of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a 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 implications exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or his statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute give the right to 3 (1859) 6 CB (N.S.) 336
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 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 statue 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 that passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd., and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. and it has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights. 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."
19. The said principle was made applicable by the Apex court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others4 (Ponnuswami), the Apex Court in Ponnunswami's case observed 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 and whenever a remedy has been provided by an Act or Statute to challenge the outcome of the election or illegality committed during the course of the election, then extraordinary remedy of Article 226 should not be ordinarily be exercised and at paragraph No.29 has held as under:
"29. The points which emerge from this decision may be stated as follows :-
(1) The right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it.
(2) Strictly speaking, it is the sole right of the legislature to examine and determine all matters relating to the election of its own members, and if 4 (1952) 1 SCC 94
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 the legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a Special Tribunal an entirely new and unknown jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction should be exercised in accordance with the law which creates it."
20. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. B Ganganna and others Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Co Operation and others5 (B Ganganna) after a deliberate consideration of various judgments framed the following points for consideration:
"(a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India is maintainable (before the publication of the calendar of events 70 of under Rule 14) to redo the voters' list for violation of Rule 13-D(2-A) (of the Rules, 1960, in preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list?
(b) Whether the authority acting under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 can decide the validity of the electoral roll vis-à-vis Rule 13-D(2-A) le of Rules, 1960?
(c) Whether the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court MOHAMMAD BEARY & 5 ILR 2024 KAR 1901
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS6 and H.S. RAJU AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS7 are per incurium and contrary to the law in ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS8."
4.1. This Court while answering the said questions has held as follows:
"22. On a cursory reading of the above- mentioned provisions, it is evident that the role of the Co-Operative Election Authority under the scheme of the Act, 1959 and the Rules 1960, in conducting the election to the board of a co- operative society is all-pervasive. Right from the stage of preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list till the announcement of results, the Co- Operative Election Authority has a predominant role to play in not only conducting the elections to the board of a co-operative society but also in finalising the electoral roll with reference to right to vote and disqualification to vote. This aspect is to be kept in mind while answering the questions raised in the petition.6
Writ petition No.29271/2023 & Connected matters) 7 2022 (4) AKR 775 8 (2000)8 SCC 216
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
26. Having considered the predominant role of the Co-Operative Election Authority right from the stage of preparing the electoral roll, finalising the same after hearing the objections, publication of calendar of events and conducting the elections, and having considered the nature of the vote of member in a co-operative society, before proceeding to answer the question whether there can be a challenge to the electoral roll in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the publication of the calendar of events on the premise that the said roll is published in violation of Rule 13-D(2-A), the Court has to consider if any, statutory remedy is available to question the violation of provisions of the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1960 in preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list.
28. The plain grammatical meaning of the expression "any dispute arising in connection with the election" itself makes abundantly clear that the Authority under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 can decide any dispute in connection with the election of the members of the board of a co- operative society. In addition, as can be noticed from Section 70(2)(c), unlike the provisions in the enactments like The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 Act, 1993, and even the Representation of People Act, 1951, which provide for election dispute on specific grounds enumerated in the provision, in Section 70(2)(c), the challenge to the election to the Board of a co-operative society is not restricted to certain specific grounds. Thus, there can be no room for any doubt whatsoever that the Section 70(2)(c) of Act, 1959 is wide enough to cover all questions in connection with Section 20 (a-iv) (a-v) and Rule 13-D (2-A) referred to above.
29. However, a word of caution is needed here. The right to vote and the disqualification to vote in the election to the board of the co-operative society is not just dependent on the procedure to be followed under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules. The right to vote or ineligibility to vote depends on the members meeting, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 20(a-iv) and (a-v). Non-compliance with the mandatory procedures prescribed under Rule 13-D(2-A) for preparation of voters' list ipso facto will not make the ineligible voter, eligible to vote. Eligibility to vote is also required to be demonstrated. It is quite possible that even if Rule 13-D92-A) is not followed, the list may conform to Section 20(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, 1959. Thus, apart from demonstrating that the Rule 130D is not complied, the member has to demonstrate that the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 is eligible to vote but should also demonstrate that the faulty voters' list made and impact on the election results.
30. It is also relevant to note that non- compliance of some part of Rule 13-D(2-A), may close the window provided to repay the dues within the time fixed under Rule 13-D(2-A). It will take away the opportunity to be an eligible voter or an opportunity to contest. Losing a chance to contest an election if the nomination paper is rejected on the premise that the candidate's name is not in the electoral roll can also be questioned under Section 70 of the Act, 1959.
33. Admittedly, Section 70(2)(c) does not specify the grounds on which an election to the board of a co-operative society can be set aside. Assuming that there is a vacuum as to what kind of relief can be granted under Section 70(2)(c), applying the principles contained in Section 100(1)(d-iv) of Act of 1951, and following the ratio in T.S.PATIL vs. THE J.R.C.S. AND OTHERS9 and CHANNE GOWDA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS10 and HAYAT BEIG vs. MUNIVENKATE GOWDA AND OTHERS11, the 9 ILR 2007 KAR 491 10 1975 (2) Kar.L.J.235 11 (1972) 1 Mys.L.J.121
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 non-compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 can be read as a ground available under Section 70(2)(c) of Act, 1959 to challenge the election to the board of a co-operative society. Thus, the Authority under Section 70 of the Act, 1959 can also look into the violation of the provisions of the Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960, applicable to the election to the board of a co-operative society. If, it is established that the electoral roll is prepared in violation of the mandatory rules and that the result of the election is affected on account of faulty electoral roll, then, the Authority under the Act is competent to pass an appropriate order on the election by assessing the impact of faulty electoral roll on the outcome of the election. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the judgment rendered in T S PATIL does not come to the aid of the petitioners. On the other hand, the principle laid down in the said judgment will enable the Authority under Section 70 to examine the violation of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 as well.
40. Whether the preparation of the electoral roll is part of an election is the question answered by the Apex Court in SHRI SANT SADGURU JANARDAN SWAMI (MOINGIRI MAHARAJ) SAHAKARI DURGHA UTPADAK SANSTHA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 OTHERS12. The Apex Court has analyzed the scheme of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules concerning the preparation of the electoral roll and the process of filing objections to the ineligible voter's list. The Apex Court has taken the view that the preparation of the electoral roll is also an intermediate stage in the election.
50. For the reasons recorded, this Court concludes as under:
(a) The preparation of electoral roll under Rule, 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-
Operative Rules 1960 is an integral part of the election process in the context of a question whether the writ petition is maintainable when the challenge is laid to the procedure initiated for preparing electoral roll.
(b) In a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the election.
12(2001) 8 SCC 509
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295
WP No. 369 of 2025
C/W WP No. 306 of 2025
(c) The judgments in MOHAMMAD
BEARY and H.S. RAJU are not per
incurium
(d) The writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll on the ground of non compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, may lie in exceptional cases."
(emphasis supplied)
21. The petitioners in WP No.306/2025 have not made out any exceptional circumstances for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and this Court declines to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners in WP No.369/2025 have made out a case that the election process has to go on and the announcement of results has to take place and for the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. WP No.369/2025 is allowed.
ii. WP No.306/2025 is hereby dismissed.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3295 WP No. 369 of 2025 C/W WP No. 306 of 2025 iii. The Returning Officer is directed to announce the results of the election to the board of the Society, which was scheduled on 12.01.2025 forthwith.
iv. Liberty is reserved to the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate authority by raising a dispute under Section 70(2)(C) of the KCS Act, 1959.
v. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
vi. This Court has not expressed merits or demerits of the eligible or ineligible voters list.
vii. Operative portion of the order shall be communicated to the learned counsels.
Sd/-
________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23