Karnataka High Court
C V Prabhakar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 41737-741/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.41737-741/2013 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN
1. C V PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE VENKATANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RA/T NO.29, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-20.
2. GANGADHAR
S/O ANNAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.6, K.K. LANE,
5TH CROSS, COTTONPET,
BANGALORE-53
3. GANGAMMA
W/O MALLIJARJUNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RA/T NO.71/A, 12TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-86
4. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O CHENNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.130, 3RD CROSS,
16TH MAIN, J.C. NAGAR,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-86
5. AKKAMMA
W/O B.H. ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.1031,
WP 41737-741/2013
2
5TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE-79. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.G G SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-72.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
TO THE ELECTION OF SREE.GANDHADAKAVAL VASATHI
RAHITARA SANGHA (REGD)
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
DASANAPURA,
NO.33/4, DEVANNANAPALYA,
DASANAPURA,
BANGALORE-562123
4. SREE GANDHADA KAVAL VASATHI
RAHITARA SANGHA (REGD)
NO.161,
SREGANDADA KAVALU
ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
SUNKDADAKATTE,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-91
REP BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.K.A.ARIGA, AGA FOR R1-3,
Sri K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO ADD THE NAMES OF THE
PETITIONERS AND OTHERS SHOWN IN THE LIST OF 292
MEMBERS AT ANN-B31 IN THE FINAL VOTERS LIST TO THE
WP 41737-741/2013
3
ELECTION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT SANGHA TO BE HELD ON
22.9.2013 FORTHWITH
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents 2 & 3 - District Registrar of Societies, Bangalore, and the Returning Officer appointed to conduct the election to the 4th respondent-Society, respectively, to add the names of the petitioners and others shown in the list at Annexure-B31, numbering about 292, in the final list, so as to enable them to participate in the election which is scheduled to be held on 22.09.2013.
2. The main contention of the petitioners is, that they are the duly enrolled members of the 4th respondent-Society along with the others whose names are mentioned in Annexure-B31 enclosed to the writ petition. But, without showing their names in the final voters list that is now published, elections to the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society are scheduled to be held on 22.09.2013, thereby depriving these petitioners and several others WP 41737-741/2013 4 similarly placed, of an opportunity to participate in the election by contesting and also by voting.
3. It is their case that immediately after coming to know of the election scheduled on going through the paper publication dated 04.09.2013 published in Vijaya Karnataka
- daily newspaper, they made representation to respondents 1 & 2 in writing on 07.09.2013 enclosing relevant documents showing that they are the original and founder members of the 4th respondent-Society. Despite such representations given, without considering the same, the respondents have been proceeding with the election scheduled to be held. It is in this background, petitioners have rushed to this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs. One of the direction sought in the writ petition is to direct respondents 2 & 3 to take immediate action on the representation submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure-B on 07.09.2013.
4. Having regard to the nature of grievance made, this Court permitted the petitioners to serve the notice on the 4th respondent-Society by taking out hand summons. Learned Additional Government Advocate was also directed to take WP 41737-741/2013 5 notice for respondents 1 to 3 and secure necessary instructions with regard to the alleged deletion of the petitioners from the voters list.
5. The 4th respondent-Society has entered appearance. It is contended by the 4th respondent-Society that the calendar of events was published on 04.09.2013 and prior to that, on 01.06.2013, draft voters list was published calling for objections and none of the petitioners submitted any objections, and thereafter, the final voters list was published and the election has been now scheduled to be held on 22.09.2013. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society that the elections are scheduled to be held pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.A.No.6349/2012 disposed of on 24.01.2013. A copy of this order is made available for perusal.
6. It is seen from the said order that the District Registrar who was party respondent No.2 to the said appeal, has been directed to appoint a senior officer in the Department as Returning Officer to conduct election for the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society and shall WP 41737-741/2013 6 communicate the name of the officer to the Society within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. A consequential direction has been issued to take steps in accordance with law to conduct the election for the Managing Committee of the Society. The further direction issued in paragraph (b) of the said order reads as under:
"(b) Returning Officer so appointed shall take steps in accordance with the Byelaws of the society to conduct election for the Managing Committee of respondent No.5. He shall set the election process in motion with the publication of a draft voters list within two weeks from the date of his appointment and after finalizing the voters list shall publish/declare the election programme and complete the election process within a period of 45 days therefrom. It is made clear that all the members, who are shown as members on the roll/record of the society, shall be named as voters irrespective of dispute, if any, in respect of any particular member pending before appropriate Authority/Forum. It is open to the members of the Society to raise objections in respect of the draft voters list and if any such objections are raised, the Returning Officer shall decide it on the appointed date. It is made clear that the decision in respect thereof shall be final, WP 41737-741/2013 7 in the sense it would not be open to the parties to challenge the same before the election process gets over. In other words, it would be open to challenge such decision by way of election dispute after result of the election is declared."
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the time schedule fixed by the Division Bench has been subsequently extended, pursuant whereof, the election process is continued.
8. It is thus clear from the direction issued by the Division Bench of his Court that the Returning Officer is given time bound schedule to complete the election process. It is also clear from the directions issued by the Bench that all the persons who are found on the roll/record of the society, shall be named as voters irrespective of any dispute. The members were also given opportunity to file their objections to the draft voters list and the Returning Officer was directed to consider the same.
9. This being the position, it is not appropriate for this Court at this stage to enter into the merits of the contentions WP 41737-741/2013 8 urged by the petitioners stating that their names have been illegally removed from the voters list. If the petitioners have any such grievance, it is open for them to agitate the same by raising appropriate dispute after the election is over. It is also well established that in matters like this, this Court will not interfere with the election process, as otherwise, it will hamper the democratic process which is set in motion, particularly, in this case, such a recourse is not at all permissible as the Division Bench has made it clear that any dispute of this nature could only be challenged by way of election dispute after the result of the election is declared.
10. Therefore, keeping open all the contentions on merits urged by the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed declining to interfere with the matter in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, but reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise election dispute after the elections are over.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK