Karnataka High Court
Ramanagouda S/O Basappa Basaraddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100619 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMANAGOUDA S/O BASAPPA BASARADDI
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
2. CHANNAPPA
S/O GURAPPA MANAGULI
AGE:59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
3. SANGAYYA
S/O DUNDAYYA MATHA
AGE: 66 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
4. RAMAPPA
S/O HANAMAPPA MALLI
2
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
5. RAMAPPA
S/O CHANDRAPPA WALIKARA
AGE: 58 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
6. RAVI
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
7. VISHWANATH
S/O SHRISHAIL CHURI
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
8. GURURAJ
S/O SIDDAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 48 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KORTI
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
9. MUTTAVVA
W/O SANNAPPA TELAGI
3
AGE: 66 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KOPPA S.R.,
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
10. BABU
S/O MANASURSAB GARIBANAVAR
AGE: 56 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DAVALESHWAR
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
11. GIRIYAPPA
S/O TIMMAPPA BUSHAREDDY
AGE:61 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DAVALESHWARA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
12. PANDAPPA
S/O GIRIYAPPA BUSHAREDDY
AGE:33 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DAVALESHWARA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
13. YAMANAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA CHALAVADI
AGE: 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DAVALESHWARA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
4
14. MAHANTESH
S/O GIRIYAPPA BUSHAREDDY
AGE: 36 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: DAVALESHWARA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
15. CHANDSAB
S/O HASANASAB NADAF
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GIRISAGARA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
16. VENKANNA
S/O SIDDAPPA DESAI
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST BAGALKOT
17. BHAGIRATHI
W/O BASAVARAJ DESAI
AGE: 62 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
18. SANTOSH
S/O PANDADAPPA ONTI
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
5
19. DODDAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA DESAI
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
20. BASAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA CHIMMADA
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
21. HUCHAPPA
S/O HANAMAPPA DABARI
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
22. YALLAWWA
W/O SANGAPPA MADAR
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
23. MUDAKAPPA
S/O BASAPPA MADAR
AGE: 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
6
24. BASAVARAJ
S/O GURUSIDDAPPA DESAI
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
25. KRISHNAPPA
S/O HANAMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
26. GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O BASAVARAJ DESAI
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONNA
TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
MS BUILDING
BENGALURU - 580001
2 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY
3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK SHANTI NAGAR
T T M C BUILDING
7
BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3.
THE ELECTION OFFICER
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BAGALKOT REGION AND ABOVE TALUKA
LAVE AND BELOW DISTRICT LEVEL
AREA OPERATION OF ALL PRIMARY
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAGALKOT
TALUK: BAGALKOT
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER
THE BILAGI TALUKA PRATHAMIK SAHAKARI
KRUSHI MATTU GRAMEEN ABURVADDI
BANK NIYAMIT BILAGI
AND THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JAMKHANDI SUB-DIVISION
JAMKHANDI
TALUK:JAMKHANDI
DIST: BAGALKOT
5. THE BILAGI TALUKA PRATHAMIK
SAHAKARI KRUSHI MATTU GRAMEEN
ABIRUADDI BANK NIYAMIT BILAGI
TALUK: BILAGI
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R.1;
R.2 TO R.5 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.107567/2024 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
29.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
C.A.V JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants -
petitioners assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.107567/2024.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners -
appellants and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1.
Notice issued in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 5 are
served.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the
order impugned in the captioned Writ Appeal.
4. The appellants-petitioners herein approached the
Writ Court aggrieved by the action of the respondents in
excluding their names from the voter's list. Before the Writ
Court, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing
respondent Nos.3 to 5 to include their names in the final list
of eligible borrower voters and to permit them to cast their
votes in the election to the committee of management of
respondent No.5, scheduled to be held on 15.12.2024.
5. Learned Single Judge citing the reported judgment
rendered in the case of Sri.B.Ganganna and others vs.
The State of Karnataka and others1 declined to grant
any indulgence thereby relegating the petitioners to avail
remedy provided under Section 70 of the Karnataka
Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants -
petitioners citing the judgments rendered by the
ILR 2024 KAR 1901
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of H.S.Raju and others vs.
State of Karnataka and others2 has contended that in
the light of the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge in the judgment cited supra, he would contend that
the order impugned needs reversal.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in H.S.Raju
and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others (cited supra)
as well as to the judgment delivered in an identical matter
in Ittappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka and
Others (W.P. No.107575/2024).
8. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge
in the judgments cited supra do not appear to advance the
case of the petitioners-appellants herein. Both judgments,
heavily relied upon by the petitioners, pertain to instances
where the writ petitions were instituted prior to the
conclusion of the election process, and in those cases, the
2022(4) AKR 775
Writ Court had granted interim relief by permitting the
alleged ineligible voters to cast their votes. It was in this
specific context that the learned Single Judges, while
referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others and of this Court in
Sri.B. Ganganna and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others (both cited supra), arrived at the conclusion that the
votes cast by such ineligible voters were liable to be
counted. This conclusion was drawn particularly because
the Returning Officers, in both cases, had not seriously
disputed the allegation that individual notices were not
issued to those members who had been declared ineligible.
Consequently, the Writ Court directed that the dispute
regarding the validity of the voters' list and the
right to vote be adjudicated under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, thus relegating
the parties to the alternative remedy prescribed by statute.
9. We have also given our anxious consideration to
the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in
Sri B. Ganganna and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others (cited supra), wherein reliance was also placed upon
an earlier decision rendered in Mohammad Beary and
Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (W.P. No.
29271/2023 and connected matters). Upon a closer
examination of the principles enunciated in both these
decisions, it becomes evident that the learned Single
Judges were of the considered view that any person
aggrieved by the non-inclusion of members in the voter's
list of a Co-operative Society ought not to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, in light of the efficacious alternative
remedy available under Section 70(2) of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
In Mohammad Beary's case, the learned Single Judge
categorically held that a writ petition challenging the
electoral list was not maintainable at all. In the subsequent
judgment in Sri B. Ganganna's case, the learned Single
Judge, while agreeing in principle with the above position,
made a further distinction: although an appeal may not lie
against an infraction of the procedure under Rule 13-D(2-A)
of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not entirely ousted. It
may still be invoked in exceptional cases where there
is tangible material to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of
justice or a manifest illegality in the preparation of the
voters' list.
10. In the present case, the elections were scheduled
to be held on 15.12.2024, and it is an admitted fact that
the petitioners were denied participation in the electoral
process. However, applying the legal principles laid down
in Mohammad Bearyand Sri B. Ganganna (both cited
supra), we are unable to discern any material irregularity or
procedural impropriety that would justify interference with
the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, in the
present matter, has rightly relied on the binding principles
enunciated in the aforementioned decisions, and we find no
compelling reason to deviate from the same. The impugned
order, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or
perversity that would warrant interference by this Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
The writ appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
NBM
