Karnataka High Court
Shri Basaveshwara Primary Agriculture ... vs The District Election Commissioner And ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835
WP No. 107514 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107514 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI BASAVESHWARA PRIMARY
AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
CHIKKBELLIKATTI, BAILHONGAL TALUK,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 102,
REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SRI. SIDDAYYA SOMAYYA HUGGI,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. SHEKHAPPA GANGAPPA NARENDRA,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, DELEGATE
AND PRESIDENT OF THE
1ST PETITIONER SOCEITY,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O: CHIKKABELLIKATTI,
BAILHONGAL TALUK,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V. R. SARATHY AND
SRI. PRASHANT A. WADAYAR, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S AND:
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of 1. THE DISTRICT ELECTION COMMISSIONER
Karnataka, AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
2. THE RETURNING OFFICER AND ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
TO CONDUCT ELECTION TO THE
BELAGAVI DISTRICT CENTRAL
CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BELAGAVI,
DSIT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
3. BELAGAVI DISTRICT CENTRAL
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835
WP No. 107514 of 2025
HC-KAR
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 016,
R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT
AND ALSO VERIFICATION OFFICER
FOR THE BDCC BANK ELECTION
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
5. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
3RD FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, A BLOCK,
SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 27.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE C/R3;
SRI. G.V.BHARAMAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE FINAL
VOTER LIST OF BAILHONGAL CONSTITUENCY DATED 03.10.2025
(ANNEXURE-H) TO THE EXTENT OF NON-INCLUSION OF THE NAMES
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER SOCIETY AND THE 2ND PETITIONER
(DELEGATE), AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE CORRESPONDING
INELIGIBLE VOTER LIST. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED.
18.10.2025 BEARING NO. MU.KA.NI.00945/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-J). ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
SOCIETY IN THE VALID VOTER LIST AND TO PERMIT THE 2ND
PETITIONER TO VOTE IN THE ELECTION SCHEDULED ON 19.10.2025
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMNARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835
WP No. 107514 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashment of a final voter list for Bailhongal constituency insofar as it excludes the names of the first petitioner - Society and the second petitioner - Delegatee to vote in the ensuing elections to be held on 19.10.2025.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy appearing for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel Sri.Pramod N.Kathavi representing third respondent - Society.
3. The issue in the lis revolves round the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 vide Annexure-J, it reads as follows:
"ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAQ£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-10-2025 gÀAzÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁj £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1959 PÀ®A 20(2) B (1) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ C£ÀºÀðUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉ."
4. The first petitioner - Society, is made ineligible delegate the second petitioner to vote in the ensuing -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835 WP No. 107514 of 2025 HC-KAR elections on the ground that the first petitioner has suffered disqualification under Section 20(2)(b)(i) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
5. The learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy submits that Section 20(2)(b)(i) of the Act is not even applicable. In the case at hand, as the said provision would become applicable only in the event of supersession in the Society, the Society is not superceded in the case at hand. Therefore the invocation of Section 20(2)(b)(i) of the Act is illegal.
6. The learned senior counsel, Sri.Pramod Kathavi representing the respondent No.3 would accept that the reference made to Section 20(2)(b)(i) of the Act in the impugned order is erroneous. He would submit that the respondent No.3 has now filed statement of objections, in justification of the impugned order, contending that the provision that had in fact to be invoked is Section 20(2)(b)(iv) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which reads as follows:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835 WP No. 107514 of 2025 HC-KAR "20. Votes of members.--(1) .....
(2) The following shall not have the right to vote at a general meeting or an election of the members of the board of the co-operative society in which they are members, namely:--
(a) .....
(b) a co-operative society,--
(i)....
(ii)....
(iii)....
(iv) whose principal object is to advance loans and whose percentage of recovery is,-
(a) less than fifty percent of its total demand for the Co-operative year immediately preceding the Co-operative year during which the meeting or election is held or;
(b) which fails to pass on to the financing bank or the credit agency, as the case may be, fifty percent of the demand or the entire portion of the recovered amount of the demand of the financing bank or credit agency, whichever is higher, at least fifteen days before the date of the general meeting or the date of election, after a notice of not less than thirty days in this regard has been issued to that society."
7. The aforequoted provision concerns the financial transaction by a Society. The learned senior counsel, on the strength of a document, appended to the statement of objections, contends that the petitioner - Society has -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835 WP No. 107514 of 2025 HC-KAR suffered disqualification as there is no transaction and is contrary to purpose of its creation itself.
8. On a perusal at the impugned order, what would unmistakably emerge is it is not only of quoting of wrong provision, but there be no foundation even towards the right provision. The impugned order does not contain anything that would become a foundation for Section 20((2)(b)(iv). All the justification with regard to the observation for wrong provision or the foundation for a right provision has sprung in the statement of objections for the first time.
9. It is trite law that the orders have to speak for themselves. The orders cannot be justified on the strength of the statement of objections that would be filed before the Courts when an order is bought under challenge. It would become apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs.Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405. The Apex Court in the aforementioned case observes as follows: -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835 WP No. 107514 of 2025 HC-KAR "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The said judgment is followed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bandeep Singh and others, (2016) 1 SCC 724, which reads as follows:
"4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835 WP No. 107514 of 2025 HC-KAR Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] of which the following paragraph deserves extraction :
(SCC p. 417, para 8) "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J.
in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 : 1952 SCR 135] : (AIR p. 18, para 9) '9. ... public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
8. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has rightly concluded that no sustainable justification and rationalisation was recorded in writing at the relevant time for ordering the re-auction of only the two subject properties. However, we should not be understood to have opined that the Government is bound in every case to accept the highest bid above the reserve price. Needless to say, the presence of cartelisation or "pooling" could be a reason for the cancellation of an auction process. In addition, a challenge on the ground that the property has fetched too low a bid when compared to the prevailing market price, would also be valid and permissible provided this approach has been uniformly adhered to. In the case at hand, however, while -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835 WP No. 107514 of 2025 HC-KAR the latter was ostensibly the reason behind the decision for conducting a fresh auction, no evidence has been placed on the record to support this contention. The highest bids, marginally above the reserve price, have been accepted in the selfsame auction. The factual scenario before us is clearly within the mischief which was frowned upon in Mohinder Singh Gill [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] . We, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment for all the reasons contained therein. The assailed action of the appellant is not substantiated in the noting, which ought at least to have been conveyed to the respondents.
9. The bid of the respondents is already over a decade old, which is the period the present appeal has been awaiting its turn in this Court. We must, therefore, balance the equities and interest of the adversaries before us. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that although the appellant had addressed a letter to the respondents purporting to return the sums received from them, the cheque for this amount was not enclosed with the letter. The fact remains that these sums continue to be in the coffers of the appellant. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the balance sale consideration had been tendered by the respondents to the appellant, who declined to accept it on the premise that their appeal was pending in this Court. The learned Senior Counsel suggested that in the endeavour to do justice to all the parties before this Court, we may direct the respondents to pay the price of the land at the prevailing circle rates, which suggestion has readily been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant with alacrity."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In the light of the settled principle of law that the objections cannot justify the impugned order and the impugned order has to stand on its own strength, the order becomes unsustainable. The unsustainability of it leads to its obliteration. Therefore, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13835
WP No. 107514 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Writ petition is disposed of.
ii. The final voter list of Bailhongal Constituency
dated 03.10.2025 vide Annexure-H to the extent of non-inclusion of the names of the first petitioner Society and the second petitioner -
delegate stands quashed.
iii. The respondents shall now include the first petitioner as a voter and the second petitioner as its delegatee.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16