Karnataka High Court
Marigowdanadoddi Milk Producers ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN
1. MARIGOWDANADODDI MILK PRODUCERS
WOMEN'S CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
MARIGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE,
HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 475
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
2. KODAGAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS WOMENS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE,
B.G.PURA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571417
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. SAGHYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD.,
Digitally signed SAGHYA VILLAGE, HALAGURU HOBLI,
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA MALAVALLI TALUK,
Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT - 571421
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA
(ALL THE PETITIONER SOCIETIES ARE REGISTERED UNDER
THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959)
...PETITIONERS
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR., ADVOCATE)
AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE
ELECTION AUTHORITY
3RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK,
SHANTHINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE ELECTION OFFICER OF
DISTRICT FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571401.
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF
MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT &
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
5. MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
6. VADARAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERTIVE SOCIETY LTD.
VADARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430
REP BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
7. SRI. VISHWANATH V.M.
AGED: 46 YEARS,
S/O SRI. MADEGOWDA,
PRESIDENT OF VADARAHALLI MILK
PRODUCERS CO-OPERTIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
VADARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430
...IMPLEADING APPLICANTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR., AAG A/W
SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4;
SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. MR. RAJGOPAL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VINAYA H., FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT
ON I.A. 1/2025)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE
PROVISION CONTAINED IN RULE 13 D(2-A) OF KARNATAKA CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1960 AND CONDUCT THE ENSUING
ELECTIONS TO THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF R-5 UNION BY
INCLUDING THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE LIST OF
ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND PERMITTING THEM TO CONTEST AND CAST
THEIR VOTES IN THE ELECTION WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD
ON 02.02.2025 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners are is before this court seeking for
the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
follow the provision contained in Rule 13 D(2-A) of
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and
conduct the ensuing elections to the Board of
Management of 5th Respondent Union by including the
names of the petitioners in the list of Eligible voters and
permitting them to contest and cast their votes in the
election which is scheduled to be held on 02.02.2025.
2. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or directions
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The Petitioners are primary Co-operative societies
being members of Respondent No.5 - Mandya District
Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited
['Mandya Union' for short]. Elections having been
announced, a list of eligible and ineligible voters was
published, wherein the petitioners' name was not
included in the eligible voters list on account of they
not having been attended a minimum two Annual
General Body Meetings of the Mandya Union.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
3. The calendar of events having been published on
10.01.2025, the date of election was fixed as
02.02.2025, It is in that background that the
Petitioners had approached this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
4. This Court initially on 22.01.2025 had permitted the
Petitioners to cast their votes in the upcoming
elections, however, directing the said votes to be
kept in a separate ballot box and made the
announcement of the result of the elections subject
to further orders of this Court. It is in pursuance
thereof that the Petitioners have voted at the
elections on 02.02.2025.
5. Respondents having been served have entered
appearance.
6. During the pendency of the matter an application for
impleading was filed by one other co-operative
society and the President of the said co-operative
society, contending that the Petitioners had
suppressed material facts, the proposed Respondent
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
No.7 had contested the election of the Mandya Union
and the Petitioners being ineligible members, their
votes cannot be taken into consideration. The said
application has been opposed by the Petitioners.
7. Thereafter, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed on
13.02.2025 seeking for insertion of certain additional
grounds in the Petition. The Managing Director of the
Mandya Union has filed an affidavit indicating that
the notices under Rule 13D of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1960 ['KCS Rules' for
short] have been issued by RPAD on 02.02.2024,
18.05.2024, 28.06.2024 and the postal receipts
thereof have also been produced along with the said
affidavit. However, acknowledgement of service has
not been produced. The amendment application has
been allowed and thereafter, the amended petition
has been filed.
8. The impleading applicant has filed his statement of
objections to the main petition. Vide order dated
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
14.02.2025, this Court has observed that the
impleading application would be heard along with the
main matter. IA No.3 of 2025 has been filed for
disposal of the above petition. It is in that
background that the above petition was taken up for
hearing on 22.04.2025.
9. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners would submit that,
9.1. Certain other matters have been disposed by
this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court
directing the announcement of results reserving
liberty to the aggrieved party to raise a dispute
under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act, 1959 ['KCS Act' for
short], the very same order could be passed in
the present matter and the above matter could
be disposed of.
9.2. He also relies upon a decision of a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Smt. B.R. Hemavathi -
v- The State of Karnataka, Department of
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
Cooperation and others1, more particularly,
para nos. 5 and 8 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
5.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 others
(B Ganganna) had given deliberate consideration to
the provisions of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960
and adjudication of dispute under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 ('KCS
Act, 1959' for short). The Co-Ordinate Bench of this
Court framed the following points for consideration at
paragraph No.9, which reads as under:
"9. In the light of the contentions raised, the
following questions arise for consideration;
(a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable (before the
publication of the calendar of events 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) of Rules,
1960?
(c) Whether the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Mohammad Beary and H.S. Raju supra
are per incurium and contrary to the law in Election
Commission of India through Secretary supra."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. The plain reading of Section 70 makes it clear that
an extensive and exhaustive mechanism is provided
under the aforesaid Section and 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 elections, whether the petitioner is the
1
WP No.1518/2025
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
eligible voter and has paid membership dues, or
annual general body meetings are attended or
availed the minimum services are all questions of
fact, which have to be decided under Section 70 of
the KCS Act, 1959 and the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the
electoral roll, the petitioner has not made out any
exceptional case in this petition to be entertained and
the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of B. Ganganna as stated supra is squarely
applicable to the present facts and the present
petition needs to be disposed of in similar terms and
hence, the following: Order Portion
9.3. On the basis of all the above, he submits that
the above petition is required to be disposed of
by directing declaration of results reserving
liberty to the concerned to raise a dispute
under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act.
10. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State, Sri T. L.
Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
Election Authority, also support the contentions of
Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel and
submits that;
10.1. Whether the disqualification is valid or
otherwise is a matter which would require trial
to be conducted, evidence to be led and the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
same cannot be ascertained in a writ petition.
The Petitioners having already voted at the
election, the results as to in whose favour not
being clear, any aggrieved party could always
raise a dispute under Section 70(2) of the KCS
Act.
10.2. They submit that the disqualification in the
present case, as contended, is on account of
Section 20(2)(aiv), on account of the
member/representative or a delegate having
failed to attend three Annual General Meetings
out of the last five General Meetings. In this
case, the meetings having been held during the
COVID period, the coordinate Bench of this
Court have looked at this aspect favourably and
not insisted upon the disqualification on account
of violation of 20(2)(a-iv).
10.3. They further submit that there is no violation of
20(2)(a-v) alleged against the Petitioners. She
relies upon the decision of a coordinate Bench
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
of this Court in B.R. Hemavathi vs State of
Karnataka & Ors.2, more particularly para
nos. 5, 6, and 8 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
5. 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 others1
(B Ganganna) had given deliberate consideration to
the provisions of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960
and adjudication of dispute under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 ('KCS Act,
1959' for short). The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court
framed the following points for consideration at
paragraph No.9, which reads as under:
"9. In the light of the contentions raised, the following
questions arise for consideration;
(a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable (before the
publication of the calendar of events 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) of
Rules, 1960?
(c) Whether the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Mohammad Beary and H.S. Raju
supra are per incurium and contrary to the law
in Election Commission of India through
Secretary supra." (Emphasis supplied)
6.The Co-Ordinate Bench after giving deliberate
consideration to various judgments has held at
paragraph Nos.50 and 51 as under:
2
W.P. No. 1518 of 2025
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
"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.
(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.
51. Based on the conclusions arrived at in the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
view that no exceptional case is made out in this
petition to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. This Court
has not expressed any opinion on the eligible and
ineligible voters' list prepared during the pendency of
the petition. Hence, the following:
ORDER Writ petition is disposed of on the following
terms:
(i) The returning officer shall count the votes cast in
the election held on 21.01.2024, to the Board of the
6th respondent bank, and shall announce the results.
(ii) The liberty is reserved to the petitioners or any
aggrieved person to raise objections to the validity of
the electoral roll in an election petition under Section
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959.
(iii) If such a dispute is raised, the Authority under
Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act, 1959, shall examine all questions including the
question relating to validity of the eligible and
ineligible voters' list and impact on the election to the
Board of the 6 th respondent - Bank.
(iv) Nothing is expressed on the merits of the eligible
and ineligible voters' list published during the
pendency of the petition and said question kept open
to be decided in the dispute under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if raised."
8. The plain reading of Section 70 makes it clear that
an extensive and exhaustive mechanism is provided
under the aforesaid Section and 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 elections, whether the petitioner is the
eligible voter and has paid membership dues, or
annual general body meetings are attended or availed
the minimum services are all questions of fact, which
have to be decided under Section 70 of the KCS Act,
1959 and the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll, the
petitioner has not made out any exceptional case in
this petition to be entertained and the decision of the
Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.
Ganganna as stated supra is squarely applicable to the
present facts and the present petition needs to be
disposed of in similar terms and hence, the following:
Order Portion
10.4. By relying on B.R. Hemavati's case, the
submission of Ms. Pratima Honnapura, learned
AAG is that the decision in B. Ganganna's case
having been considered in B.R. Hemavathi's
case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
directed the counting of votes and
announcement of the result, reserving liberty to
any aggrieved party to raise a dispute under
Section 70(2) of the KCS Act. She therefore
submits that both Ganganna's case and B.R.
Hemavati's case make it clear that the remedy
available to an aggrieved party is one under
Section 70(2) and not to agitate the matter
before this Court. As such, she submits that
this Court may direct for declaration of results
reserving liberty to the aggrieved party to raise
a dispute under Section 70(2) of KCS Act.
11. Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the impleading applicant vehemently
opposes the submission of the counsel for the
Petitioner, learned AAG and the counsel for the
Election Authority and insists that this Court would
have to decide on the matter since this Court had
permitted the Petitioners to cast their vote in the
election and further submits as under:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
11.1. As per the affidavit filed by the Society, the
requirement of Rule 13D having been complied
with, no objection having been filed by the
Petitioners as regards their ability or inability to
attend the meeting, there was nothing
remaining for consideration by the authorities
and as such, they have been validly included in
the ineligible voters list.
11.2. Therefore, the Petitioners not having availed of
the remedy available to them to object to the
notice issued under Rule 13D of the KCS Rules,
the question of the Petitioners approaching this
court and availing of a right to vote at the
meeting is not permissible.
11.3. The votes having been kept in a separate box,
this Court could well decide whether the
Petitioners were eligible voters and thereafter
decide whether those votes have to be counted
for the purpose of declaration of results.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
11.4. He relies upon the decision of this Court in
Mullahalli Milk Producers Co-op Society
Ltd. And others -v- State of Karnataka and
others3, more particularly para nos. 2 and 3
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the objections
had been submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of a
notice issued under clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule
13 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and
the same had not been considered properly. As regards
which, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner who has considered and passed
the order on 26.7.2024 holding that the petitioners to
be ineligible.
3. A detailed analysis of the facts having been made by
the Deputy Commissioner and on facts it has been
found that the petitioners are ineligible members, I am
of the considered opinion that the said finding on fact
cannot be disturbed in the present proceedings. As
such, no grounds being made out, the petition stands
dismissed.
11.5. By relying on Mullahalli Society's case, he
submits that this Court has held that when an
appeal had been filed before the Deputy
Commissioner by the societies challenging their
inclusion under the ineligible voters list and the
3
WP No.1590/2025
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
Deputy Commissioner on facts had come to a
conclusion that they are ineligible, this Court
had dismissed the writ petition filed by directing
the counting of the votes excluding the votes of
the Petitioners and as such, he submits that in
the present case there being no reply issued to
notice under Rule 13, there is nothing required
to be considered in the present matter which is
worse off than a case which was decided by the
Deputy Commissioner and as such, he submits
that the decision in Mullahalli Society's case
would be applicable requiring the dismissal of
the aforesaid petition with a direction not to
count the votes of the Petitioners.
11.6. He relies upon the decision, in B. Ganganna
and others -v- State of Karnataka and
others4, more particularly para no. 50 thereof,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
4
WP No.29014/2023
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
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.
(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.
11.7. Relying on Sri. B. Ganganna's case, he
submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court
has categorically held that the preparation of
the electoral roll under Rule 13D of the KCS
Rules is an integral part of the election process
and as such, the validity or otherwise can
always be decided under Section 70(2)(c) and a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution can only be exercised in
exceptional cases. He submits that a coordinate
Bench of this Court has granted liberty to the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
Petitioners therein to raise any objections to the
validity of the electoral roll under Section
70(2)(c) of the KCS Act and has categorically
refrained from deciding on the eligibility or
ineligibility of the Petitioners therein. As such,
he submits, that aspect ought to be left to the
decision of the Authority under Section 70(2).
11.8. He relies upon the decision of another
coordinate Bench of this court in T. Sampath
Kumarachar -v- State of Karnataka and
others5 more particularly para no. 10 thereof
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
10. As already noticed, this petition is filed
subsequent to the publication of calendar of events.
This Court has taken a view that the non-compliance
of Rule 13-D(2-A) itself cannot be a ground to permit
the petitioners to vote in the election and that right to
vote has to be demonstrated by producing the records
to show that the petitioners have fulfilled the
requirements under the Provisions of Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act. In this case, the petitioners
are not entitled to relief that was granted to the
petitioners in H.S.Raju's case supra as the
respondent-Society has raised an objection and has
taken a stand that the society has issued notice to the
5
WP No.546/2024
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
petitioners and petitioners have not replied to the said
notice. Admittedly, there is no reply to the notices
issued. Though, there are some defects in the said
notices, as this Court has taken a view that non-
compliance of Rule 13- D(2-A) by itself will not make
the petitioners eligible to vote in the election, the
petitioners are not entitled to the order similar to the
one granted in H S Raju's case supra. The votes cast
by the petitioners cannot be counted while declaring
the election. s
11.9. By relying on T. Sampath Kumarachar's case,
he again submits that a dispute as regards
eligibility or ineligibility would have to be
decided under Section 70 of the KCS Act and
therefore, this Court also ought not to direct
the counting of the votes of the Petitioners
while announcing the result.
11.10. His submission is that there being compliance
with Rule 13D(2A), the votes cast by the
Petitioner cannot be considered. On that basis,
he submits that similar orders as that have
been passed in B. Ganganna's case and T.
Sampath Kumarachar's case may be passed
in the present matter.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
12. Heard Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Prathima Honnapura,
learned Additional Advocate General for the State,
Sri. T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2, Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior
Counsel for the impleading applicants. Perused
papers.
13. The points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are;
1. Whether a dispute raised in relation to the
eligible and ineligible voters list published by
the society can be considered in a writ
petition?
2. Whether in the facts of the present case,
there is a requirement to direct the votes
cast by the Petitioners to be counted while
announcing the result of the election?
3. What Order?
14. I answer the above points as under:
15. ANSWER TO POINT No.1- Whether a dispute
raised in relation to the eligible and ineligible
voters list published by the society can be
considered in a writ petition?
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
15.1. The aspect of whether a dispute as regards
eligibility or ineligibility of the voter, as
indicated in the voters list published by the
society, can be considered by this court or not,
has been answered by a Coordinate Bench of
this court, in Ganganna's case and T.
Sampath Kumarachar's case, wherein this
Court has categorically held that such a dispute
can only be raised in a dispute under Section
70(2) of the KCS Act and not before the writ
court.
15.2. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that
a dispute as regards the eligibility or
ineligibility of a voter as published in the
voters list would have to be considered
only in a dispute raised under Section
70(2) of the KCS Act and it is only in
exceptional circumstances that this Court
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
can exercise its jurisdiction by way of a
writ petition.
16. ANSWER TO POINT No.2: Whether in the facts
of the present case, there is a requirement to
direct the votes cast by the Petitioners to be
counted while announcing the result of the
election?
16.1. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
Petitioners have been listed under the ineligible
voters list on the ground of them not having
attended three annual general meetings out of
five and as such, have defaulted the
requirement of Section 20(2A)(iv). Apart from
the said violation, there is no other violation
that has been alleged against the Ppetitioners
to hold them ineligible to vote at the election.
16.2. The aspect of ineligibility under any other
provision would have required trial, insofar as
the aspect of ineligibility in this case under
Section 20(2aiv), I am of the considered
opinion that the same not requiring any oral
evidence to be led, the same can be considered
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
on the basis of the documents available on
record.
16.3. The society has contended that the
requirements of Section 13D(2A) have been
complied with. However, the Petitioners did not
reply to the same, even though the Petitioners
were aware of they being listed in the
ineligibility list.
16.4. Under normal circumstances, this Court would
not have intervened in the matter at hand,
except that two of the meetings of the last five
meetings have been held during the COVID
period and as it is known to one and all, it was
difficult during the said COVID period for any
person to travel and or attend any meetings
and there were also restrictions in relation
thereto. The COVID period would have to be
considered differently than the normal period
and non-attendance of meeting ought not to, in
such circumstances, be held against a member
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
so as to hold such member to be ineligible to
vote at a meeting which is a democratic right
vested in such a member.
16.5. A perusal of the facts in Ganganna's case,
indicates that the ineligibility therein was on
account of both violation of Section 20(2a-iv)
and Section 20(2a-v). Section 20(2a-v) is one
which relates to non-availment of services by
the member during three of the last five
financial co-operative years.
16.6. From a perusal of the facts in Sampath
Kumarachar's case, it is not clear as to on
what basis the ineligibility was determined,
whether it was an account of the violation of
Section 20(2a-iv) or 20(2a-v). The decision in
Hemavati's case also does not indicate the
reason for the ineligibility of the member.
16.7. In the present case, admittedly the ineligibility
of the Petitioner is only on account of the
violation of Section 20(2aiv) which has been
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
dealt with supra. In that view of the matter, I
am of the considered opinion that taking into
account the COVID pandemic and taking into
account that two of the meetings were held
during the COVID pandemic, the non-
attendance of the meeting by the Petitioners
cannot be held to deprive them of exercising
their democratic rights. The elections to the
Union occurring once in five years, the delegate
of the Petitioners who are primary co-operative
societies ought to be held to be entitled to vote
at the elections of the union so as to exercise
their democratic rights.
16.8. Hence, I answer point No.2, by holding
that in the exceptional situation made out
by the Petitioners being unable to attend
the Annual General Body Meeting during
the COVID pandemic period, the same
ought not to be held against the
Petitioners.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
WP No. 1375 of 2025
17. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: What Order?
17.1. In view of my answers to the above points, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. Respondents No.2 and 4 are directed to
count the votes cast in the election
including the votes of the Petitioners kept
in a separate ballot box and announce the
results.
iii. Since the eligibility or otherwise of the
Petitioners has been considered and
determined by this Court as regards
Section 20(2a-iv), there would be no
requirement for raising any dispute under
Subsection (2) of Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959 insofar as the eligibility of the
Petitioners are concerned with reference
to Section 20(2a-iv).
iv. The declaration of results shall be final
insofar as the eligibility of the Petitioners
are concerned with reference to Section
20(2a-iv).
v. Liberty is reserved to any other aggrieved
party to raise any other issue other than
the eligibility of the Petitioners under
Section 20(2a-iv) in a proceeding under
Subsection (2) of Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18119
18. The impleading application having been heard, there
is no requirement to pass any order on the
impleading application.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
