Karnataka High Court
Sri. Somangouda And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 December, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
WP No. 215232 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 215232 OF 2020 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SOMANGOUDA
S/O SHARANAPPA BELAGUMPI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALABHATTI, TQ:JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
2. SRI.VEERUPAXAPPAGOUDA
S/O BASANGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALABHATTI, TQ:JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
Digitally signed 3. SRI.SHANKREPPA @ SHIVASHANKAR
by SACHIN
Location: S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OF
KARNATAKA OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALABHATTI, TQ:JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
4. SRI. SHARANAPPA
S/O AYYAPPA DHANAPPAGOL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALABHATTI, TQ:JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
WP No. 215232 of 2020
5. SRI. ARUNKUMAR
S/O SHARANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIVAPUR, TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
6. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O SOMANGOUDA BELAGUMPI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALABHATTI, TQ:JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
7. SRI. RAMU S/O MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALABHATTI, TQ:JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURGI-585 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR AND
SRI. V. N. KAGWAD, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
ALI ASKER ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
RAICHUR-584 102.
4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
WP No. 215232 of 2020
ELECTION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
5. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
BALABATTI, TALUK JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585 101.
6. THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE
CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
BALABATTI, TALUK JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
7. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE
ELECTION AUTHORITY,
3RD FLOOR, SHANTHI NAGAR,
T.T.M.C. 'A' BLOCK,
SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-27,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. A. M. NAGARAL, ADV. FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R7 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A) ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION,
QUASHING THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS DATED 15.01.2020
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS TO
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 6TH RESPONDENT; B) ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS TO THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF 6TH RESPONDENT CREDIT SOCIETY IN
TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
WP No. 215232 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for respondents submits that the
petition would not be maintainable in view of the fact that
the main prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing
the calendar of events dated 15.01.2020 issued by fourth
respondent, this Court vide order dated 23.01.2020,
granted an interim order of stay of calendar of events
dated 15.01.2020 vide Annexure-A. However, the
communication of the order was not made to respondents
-authority vide order dated 23.01.2020.
2. In view of the non communication of the order,
the election came to be concluded and declared un-
apposed on 25.01.2020.
3. This being the state of affairs, the main petition
filed herein itself would not survive for consideration. Be
that as it may, even otherwise the petitioner if aggrieved
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
by the order is entitled to challenge the election conducted
by respondents -authorities declared on 25.01.2020.
4. It is also seen that there is an alternative and
efficacious remedy available under Section 70(2)(c) under
the Cooperative Societies Act of 1959 and the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru
Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugha
Utpadak Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra
and others1. It is relevant to extract the paragraphs in the
said judgment at No.10 and 12.
"10. These provisions do not leave any room
for doubt that an excluded member, with the
publication of the Draft Eligible Electoral List, must
have an opportunity by way of an individual notice to
file objections on exclusion from the Electoral List. It
must be shown that the concerned Chief Executive
has prepared and sent notice to the affected
members. The Public Notice dated 8.11.2021 does
not meet these requirements. In fact, it is admitted
on behalf of the respondents that there are
deficiencies in the preparation of the Final Electoral
Roll after the publication of the Draft Eligible
(2001) 8 SCC 509
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
Electoral List, and the petitioners have not been
issued with individual notices.
12. It follows from this decision that the
adjudication of all questions must be as provided
under Section 70(2) of the Co-operative Societies
Act. However, in the present case the respondents
admit that there are deficiencies in finalization of
Final Electoral List. The petitioners are admittedly not
issued with individual notice as required under the
provisions of Rule 13-D (2-A) of the Cooperative
Societies Rules; the petitioners have now cast their
votes in the elections on 23.04.2022; the petitioners
are not given the opportunity to show cause against
the allegations that they have created documents.
The respondents, despite admitting deficiencies in
finalisation of the Final Electoral List, want to invoke
the rule of alternative remedy. This Court is of the
considered view that, in the peculiarities of this case,
the writ petitions should be disposed of with
directions to the concerned respondent to announce
results counting even the votes cast by the
petitioners and with liberty to all the concerned to
avail remedy under Section 70(2) of the Act if
aggrieved by the results. If such remedy is availed
raising a dispute, exclusion of votes of those
petitioners who are guilty of fraud can also be
considered based on the material that will be placed
on record."
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9062
5. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that
when there is an alternative and efficacious remedy
available under the Act of 1959, the petitioners will have
to approach before appropriate forum to address their
grievance without adverting to the same the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be
maintainable in view of the election having been declared
unopposed. However, without adverting to the merits of
the matter, this petition requires to be disposed of.
Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER
a. Petition is disposed of.
b. Petitioners are at liberty to challenge the
same in accordance with law.
c. Petitioners are also at liberty to challenge
the order passed by authority in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
