Karnataka High Court

Rajeshekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2025

Author: M.G.S.Kamal

Bench: M.G.S.Kamal

                                             -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054
                                                      WP No. 202986 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,           ®
                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 202986 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   RAJESHEKAR
                        S/O NAGAMURTHI,
                        AGE:61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. CHANDORI, THANNA KUSHNOOR,
                        BIDAR-585436.

                   2.   DAYANAND
                        S/O VISHWAMBER SHASTRI,
                        AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. SIKENDRAPUR ROAD,
                        NEAR MANIK PRABHU TEMPLE,
                        ANDURA, BIDAR-585402.
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N        3.   BASAVARAJ
Location: HIGH          S/O GUNVANTH RAO PATIL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               AGE: 69 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. GURU NANAK COLONY,
                        BIDAR-585401.
                                                           ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,
                        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054
                                  WP No. 202986 of 2025


HC-KAR



     BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     OPP. OLD BUS STAND, BIDAR-585101.

3.   THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
     BIDAR-585101.

4.   THE NARANJA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD,
     IMMAPURA, BIDAR-585402,
     DIST. BIDAR,
     BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

5.   THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
     NEHARU GUNJ, KALABURAGI-585104.

6.   RETURNING OFFICER,
     ELECTION OF NARANJA SAHAKARA SAKKARE
     KARKHANE LTD, IMMAPURA, BIDAR,
     BIDAR-585402.

7.   UMAKANT
     S/O GURUPADAPA NAGAMARPALLI,
     AGE:64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. H.NO.8-7-101, LIG-21,
     KHB COLONY, BIDAR.

8.   AMBRESH S/O GANGAPPA,
     AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. NAGAMARPALLI VILLAGE,
     TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR.

9.   SHOBHAVATI W/O SHANKRAPPA PATIL,
     AGE:62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. BALLUR (J), TQ. AURAD(B),
     DIST. BIDAR.
                           -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054
                                  WP No. 202986 of 2025


HC-KAR



10. MALLAMMA W/O KASHINATH PATIL,
    AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. CHAMBOL, TQ AND DIST. BIDAR.

11. SANJAY KUMAR
    S/O NAGASHETTY SIDDAPURE,
    AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. SIDDAPUR VILLAGE,
    TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

12. RAJKUMAR S/O MANIKAPPA KARANJI,
    AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. H.NO.LIG 58/CMC NO. 8-7-154,
    KHB COLONY, BIDAR-58401.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALHAR RAO, AAG AND
 SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA, FOR R1, R2, R3 & R5;
 SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
 SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R12)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
DIRECTION    TO   QUASH   THE   IMPUGNED    ELECTION
NOTIFICATION    PUBLISHED   ON   10.09.2025  BY   6TH
RESPONDENT FIXING THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS ON
12.09.2025 AND VOTING DATED 27.09.2025 THE COPY OF
WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. B) ISSUE OF
WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6
FOR INCLUDING OF NAMES OF PETITIONERS OTHER
THOUSANDS SHAREHOLDERS IN THE VOTER LIST OR NOTIFY
THEM FOR NOT INCLUSION AND PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR HEARING (AUDI ALTERM PARTEM) BEFORE PUBLISHING
OF SUBSEQUENT FINAL VOTER LIST.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
                                 -4-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054
                                        WP No. 202986 of 2025


HC-KAR



                         ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)

This petition puts in issue the validity or otherwise of

the process of election being carried out by respondent

No.6 as per the Election Notification dated 10.09.2025

produced at per Annexure-C in respect of respondent No.4

- Cooperative Society. Petitioners claiming to be the

members of respondent No.4 - Cooperative Society have

sought for following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned election notification published on 10.09.2025 by 6th respondent fixing the calendar of events on 12.09.2025 and voting dated 27.09.2025;

b) Issue of writ of mandamus for directing the respondent No.6 for including of names of petitioners other thousands shareholders in the voter list or notify them for not inclusion and provide the opportunity for hearing (audi alterm partem) before publishing of subsequent final voter list; and

c) and any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

2. Learned counsel Sri Gourish S. Khashampur

appearing for petitioners taking this Court through the

records submits:

(a) That there are more than 25,000 shareholders of respondent No.4 - Cooperative Society, who are residing at different/remote parts of the districts.

(b) That elections to the Board of respondent No.4 -

Cooperative Society is sought to be conducted as per Annexure-C in furtherance to which list of eligible voters was published as per Annexure-B, which consists only 4,438 eligible voters as against 25,000 voters.

(c) He strenuously taking this Court through the provisions of Rule 13-D of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 ('the KCS Rules, 1960' for short) providing for preparation of electoral rolls with particular emphasis to Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960, insists that the final eligible voters list shall be prepared and published before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. That list of voters at Annexure-B has been published on 07.09.2025, while the calendar of events as per

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

Annexure-C has been published on 10.09.2025. Thus, he submits there is gross violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D KCS Rules, 1960. In that, respondent No.6 has proposed to conduct the election just within a period of three days from the date of publication of the list of voters without even providing minimum period of fifteen clear days.

(d) That the respondent - authorities have not complied with the provisions mandated for the purpose of preparation of the voters list, which vitiates the entire process. Considering the number and size of the membership of Respondent No.4 - Cooperative Society, this Court is required to exercise its writ jurisdiction to enable all the members to participate in the democratic process of respondent No.4- Cooperative Society.

(e) That the Returning Officer declared the respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 as elected unopposed on 21.09.2025 instant which is much within the stipulated period of fifteen clear days from the date of issuance of final voters list.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

(f) That though an alternate remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the KCS Act, 1959' for short) is provided, the aforesaid violation of provisions of law is the extraordinary circumstance warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.

3. In support of his contentions, the learned

counsel for petitioners relies upon the following

authorities:

i) Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another - Civil Appeal No.5707/2023 dated 06.09.2023;

ii) Mysore and Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.A.No.1333/2023 and connected matters dated 02.01.2024;

iii) Aashish Kishor Gadkari vs. The State Election Commission and another in W.P.(L.).No33675/2024 dated 06.11.2024;

iv) J.T.Koppalu Consumer Co-operative Society Limited and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.11721/2025 dated 28.04.2025;

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

v) Sri A.Ragavendra and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.3301/2024 connected with W.P.No.33117/2024 dated 09.01.2025;

vi) Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.107564/2024 dated 12.12.2024; and

vii) Sri Chetan vs. Smt.P.V.Kalpana and others in W.A.No.1175/2024 dated 02.05.2025.

4. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel

appearing for private respondent Nos.7 to 12 submits:

(a) That consistent position of law has been that once the calendar of events are issued, the Court shall ordinarily not interfere in the process of election and the election should be allowed to be continued uninterrupted. That should there be any dispute or any party being aggrieved by the election process, necessary reliefs contemplated under the statute be availed by way of filing election petition.
(b) That in the instant case the elections are being conducted under the provisions of KCS Act, 1959, the challenge raised by the petitioners is in respect of preparation of electoral rolls which is very much an essential part of the process of election and such challenge is amenable under the provisions of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

(c) That the contention urged by the petitioners with regard to respondent No.6 violating mandate of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 is misconceived. In that, period of fifteen clear days contemplated is referable to the date of election and not the date on which the calendar of event is issued.

(d) That the list of eligible voters as per Annexure-B has been published on 07.09.2025. Date of election is fixed on 27.09.2025. The period between the date of issuance of the list of eligible voters and the date of election is far beyond the period of fifteen clear days. Therefore, there has been strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law.

(e) Adverting to the declaration of result of respondent Nos.7 to 10 as unopposed, he submits that provisions of Rule 14-G(2) of the KCS Rules, 1960 provides for declaration of candidate unopposed. That the polling is contemplated only if there are more than one candidate for the required seat.

(f) That the interim order granted by this Court has interrupted the process of election. Therefore, the law with regard to such a situation is also well settled wherein if a process of election is interrupted by way

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

of an interim order of a Court, and if the petition is finally dismissed, the process of election has to be continued from the stage where it was stopped.

(g) Thus, the learned Senior counsel submits that the election process in the instant case having been interrupted in the light of the interim order dated 26.09.2025 granted by this Court, be directed to be continued from the stage where it was interrupted.

5. In support of this submission, the counsel relies

upon the following authorities:

a) Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar and others - (2000) 8 SCC 216;

b) Supreme Court Bar Association and others vs. B.D.Kaushik - (2011) 13 SCC 774;

c) Mohammad Beary and others vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.29271/2023 and connected matters dated 28.12.2023;

d) Sri B.Ganganna and others vs. State of Karnataka, in W.P.No.29014/2023 dated 24.01.2024;

e) H.B.Veerabhadra Goud vs. Returning Officer and Tahasildar - ILR 1990 KAR 2850; and

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

f) H.V.Prasanna vs. Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer, Hassan City Municipal Council and others - (1988) 3 Kant L.J 510.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing

for the State furnishing copies of the records pertaining to

the process of preparation of electoral rolls at Annexure-B

to the writ petition submits:

(a) That the statutory notices were issued to all the members of respondent No.4 - Co-operative Society as required under Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 calling upon them to clear the dues and to file objections if any. He also brings to the notice of this Court the paper publication issued in the daily newspaper, Vijayavani, Prajavani, Vijaya Karnataka on 23.04.2025 and Kannadaprabha on 24.04.2025 instant. Thus he submits that there has been complete compliance of the law by the Election Officer before preparation of the voters list.

(b) That since the issue raised pertains to the disputed questions of fact, the writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is required to be dismissed

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

by relegating the petitioners to avail the remedy if they so advised under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959.

(c) He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph vs. V. Viswanath and others in Civil Appeal No.1629/2016 dated 22.02.2016 and referring to para 14 of the said judgment submits that the Court shall not interfere with the election process and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

7. Heard. Perused the records.

8. Before adverting to the rival submissions

necessary to refer to the settled position of law in the

matter of entertaining petitions raising issues pertaining to

election process.

9. Apex Court in the case of Election

Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok

Kumar and others (supra) referring to its various earlier

judgments at paragraphs 31 and 32 has summed up as

under:

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

"31. The founding fathers of the Constitution have consciously employed use of the words no election shall be called in question in the body of Section 329 (b) and these words provide the determinative test for attracting applicability of Article 329 (b). If the petition presented to the Court calls in question an election the bar of Article 329 (b) is attracted. Else it is not.

32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove:-

1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.

2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to calling in question an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election.

Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.

3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the case of Supreme Court Bar

Association and others vs. B.K.Kaushik (supra) at

paragraph 60 has held as under:

"60. Further, the appellants had rightly pointed out to the learned Judge that election process had already started and, therefore, injunction, as

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

claimed, should not be granted. Since 1952 this Court has authoritatively laid down that once election process has started the courts should not ordinarily interfere with the said process by way of granting injunction......"

11. Thus, the present petition has to be dealt with

keeping in mind the aforesaid settled principles of law.

12. The vehement submission of learned counsel

for the petitioners in justification of maintainability of the

present writ petition is purported gross violation of Clause

(d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960

providing for publication of final list of eligible voters with

fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. That in the

instant case voters' list is published on 07.09.2025 as per

Annexure-B while election notification has been published

on 10.09.2025 as per Annexure-C. The calendar of events

have commenced on and from 12.09.2025 and the date

for polling is fixed to be held on 27.09.2025. Thus, the

period between the publication of list of voters and

publication of calendar of events is just about three days,

thereby violating the rules providing period of fifteen clear

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

days for the elections from the date of publication of list of

voters.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners

emphatically submits the period of fifteen clear days

contemplated under Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of

Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 shall be construed

between the date of publication of list of voters and the

date of coming into effect of calendar of events and not

the date fixed for polling. He submits only such

construction to the language used in Clause (d) of

sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 would

justify the requirement of providing sufficient period to the

eligible voters or to the persons who have been left out of

the list to redress their grievance, failing which the same

would result in depriving the constitutional and

fundamental rights of the petitioners.

14. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents on

the other hand submits that the date of election shall be

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

referred to the actual date of polling and not the date on

which the calendar of events is issued.

15. Necessary at this juncture to refer to

notification of election produced at Annexure-C providing

for calendar of events which reads as under:

"£ÀªÀÄÆ£É-XII {¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14 (3) C£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr} ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ £ÉÆnÃ¸ÀÄ

£ÁgÀAeÁ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ¸ÀPÀÌgÀÉ PÁSÁð£É ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, f.J£ï.£ÀUÀgÀ, EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÇgÀ-©ÃzÀgÀ gÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ, ªÀÄÄA¢£À LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÀÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §ÃzÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèQ£À d£ÀªÁqÀ ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀÄªÀ EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÇgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.09.2025 (±À¤ªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ 9:00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÉUÀÉ £ÀqÉ¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ:

1. 'J' ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Äâ §É¼ÀÉUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃQgÀÄªÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ: 11 ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ:

¸ÀzÀj 11 ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À ¥ÀÊQ

i) ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ :01 ¸ÁÜ£À

ii) ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ : 01 ¸ÁÜ£À

iii) ªÀÄ»¼Á ªÀUÀðzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ : 02 ¸ÁÜ£À iV) »AzÀÄ½zÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð "J" ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ : 01 ¸ÁÜ£À V) »AzÀÄ½zÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð "©" ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ : 01 ¸ÁÜ£À Vi) ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå : 05 ¸ÁÜ£À

2. '©' ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Äâ §É¼ÀÉUÁgÀgÀ®èzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃQgÀÄªÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ :01 ¸ÁÜ£À

3. '¹' ªÀUÀðzÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃQgÀÄªÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ :01 ¸ÁÜ£À

¸ÀzÀj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉAiÀÄ WÀl£ÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAwgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ:

- 18 -
                                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054



 HC-KAR



  PÀæ.           ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÁAiÀÄð¸ÀÆa                        ¢£ÁAPÀ, ªÁgÀ                 ¸ÀÜ¼À
 ¸ÀA.                                                         ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ
(J)      ¸Àé¢üÃð¸À®Ä EaÒ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ                   12.09.2025,             £ÁgÀAeÁ ¸ÀºÀPÁj
         C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä           (±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ     PÁSÁð£É ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ,
         ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ                               11:00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ        f.J£ï.£ÀUÀgÀ,
                                                          ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00         EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÆgÀ, vÁ:f:
                                                          UÀAmÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÉUÀÉ       ©ÃzÀgÀ gÀ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è
                                                                                  EgÀÄªÀ DqÀ½vÀ
(©)      ¸Àà¢üÃð¸À®Ä EaÒ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ                   19.09.2025,             PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è
         C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¸À®Ä                 (±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ
         PÀqÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-J)                  11:00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ
                                                          ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00
                                                          UÀAmÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÉUÀÉ

(¹)      jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ                              20.09.2025,             Naranja
         £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É                          (±À¤ªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ        sahakari
         (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-©)                                  11:00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ        Sakkare
                                                                                  Karkhane Ltd.
(r)      jl¤ðAUÀ C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ ¹AzsÀÄvÀé ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ         £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¥Àj²Ã®£É
         £ÁªÀÄ¤zÉÃð²vÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀltÉ      ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ     G.N. Nagar,
         (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ-14 ©(4))                                                       Imampur Tq
                                                                                  Bidar, @
(E)      GªÉÄÃzÀÄªÁgÀjAzÀ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä   21.09.2025,             Administrative
         PÀqÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-¹)
                                                          (gÀ«ªÁgÀÀ) ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß   Building
                                                          3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ
                                                          M¼ÀUÁV.

(J¥sï) ¤ªÁðZÀ£Á¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ ¹AzsÀÄvÀé                       21.09.2025,
       ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ GªÉÄÃzÀÄªÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ                 (gÀ«ªÁgÀÀ) ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß
       ¥ÀæPÀltÉ (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-r)                           3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ
                                                          £ÀAvÀgÀ

(f)      CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ«zÀÝ°è jl¤ðAUï                         21.09.2025,
         C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÀÉ                        (gÀ«ªÁgÀÀ) ¸ÀAeÉ
         aºÉßUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉ                                  4:00 UÀAmÉUÉ
         (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-E)

(ºÉZï) ¹AzÀÄvÀé ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ GªÉÄÃzÀÄªÁgÀgÀ                 23.09.2025,           £ÁgÀAeÁ ¸ÀºÀPÁj
       ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ aºÉßAiÉÆA¢UÀÉ ¥ÀæPÀltÉ                    (ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ) ¨É½UÉÎ PÁSÁð£É ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ,
       (¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-E ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 14-J¥sï)                    11:00 UÀAmÉUÉ         f.J£ï.£ÀUÀgÀ,
                                                                                EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÆgÀ, vÁ:f:
                                                  - 19 -
                                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054



     HC-KAR



(L)       ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ      27.09.2025,           ©ÃzÀg.À
                                                    (±À¤ªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ
                                                    9:00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ
                                                    ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4:00       Naranja
                                                    UÀAmÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÉUÀÉ     Sahakari
                                                                          Sakkare
(eÉ)      ªÀÄvÀ JtÂPÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ            27.09.2025,           Karkhane Ltd.
          ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ                                 (±À¤ªÁgÀ) ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À
                                                                          G.N. Nagar,
                                                    ªÀÄÄVzÀ vÀPÀët
                                                                          Imampur Tq &
                                                                          Dist :Bidar.
(PÉ)      jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ                       27.09.2025,
          ¥sÀ°vÁA±À WÉÆÃµÀtÉ                        (±À¤ªÁgÀ) ªÀÄvÀ
                                                    JtÂPÉ ªÀÄÄVzÀ
                                                    £ÀAvÀgÀ
1. ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ MlÄÖ 13 (ºÀ¢ªÀÄÆgÀÄ) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

2. 'J' ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Äâ §É¼ÀÉUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ 11 ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ZÀÄ£Á¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

a. EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÀÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ, (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ PÀÌÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ, (02) ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄ»¼Á ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß »AzÀÄ½zÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð 'J' UÀÉ ºÁUÀÆ (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß »AzÀÄ½zÀÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð '©' UÀÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ «ÄÃ¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. H½zÀ (05) ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå DVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.

b. J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀs¸ÀågÀ£ÀÄß MAzÉÃ ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ CªÀgÀÄ J¯Áè ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ZÀÄ£Á¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

c. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ºÁUÀÆ »AzÀÄUÀ½zÀ ªÀUÀð 'J' ªÀÄvÀÄÛ '©' ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ EwÛÃa£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV eÁj ªÀiÁrzÀ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÀÉ PÀqÁØAiÀÄªÁV ®UÀwÛ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

3. '©' ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Äâ §É¼ÀÉUÁgÀgÀ®èzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ MAzÀÄ (01) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÀÌÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉ £ÀqÉ¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ªÀUÀðzÀ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ£ÉßÃ M§â ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ§ÉPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

4. '¹' ªÀUÀðzÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀUÀðzÀ°èAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ (01) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÀÌÉ ¸Àà¢ð¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀUÀðzÀ°èAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÉßÃ M§â ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ§ÉPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

5. £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ C¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÉÆºÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

6. £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°èPÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.09.2025gÀ §É½UÉÎ 11:00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÉUÀÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.09.2025gÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÁV £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÀÉ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è ¸À°è¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

7. M§â C¨sÀåyð MAzÀÄ ªÀUÀðQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀUÀðPÀÌÉ C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è, ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ºÀPÀÄÌ¼Àî ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ C¨sÀåyðQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À C¨sÀåyðUÀÉ ¸ÀÆZÀPÀ£ÁV ¤zÉÃð±À£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè.

8. ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14-J(3) gÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ GªÉÄÃzÀÄªÁjPÉ vÀªÀÄä £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÀÉ gÀÆ.2,000/-UÀ¼ÀÄ oÉÃªÀtÂ £ÀUÀzÀÄ CxÀªÁ r.r oÉÃªÀtÂ¹zÀ gÀ²ÃzÀ£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀÄªÁV ®UÀwÛ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ»¼Á GªÉÄÃzÀÄªÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj oÉÃªÀtÂAiÀÄ ±ÉÃ 50% gÀµÀÄÖ oÉÃªÀtÂ CAzÀgÀÉ (gÀÆ. 1,000/-) oÉÃªÀtÂ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. (¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ºÁUÀÆ »AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀðPÀÌÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ°è EwÛa£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV ¤ÃrzÀ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ®UÀwÛ¸ÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.)

9. ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GªÉÄÃzÀÄªÁgÀgÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉUÀÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1959, ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1960 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ G¥À «¢üUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ J¯Áè CºÀðvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥sÁ°¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
¸ÀÜ¼À: ©ÃzÀgÀ                                                                ¸À»/-
¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.09.2025                                                     ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ¢üPÁj"
16. Perusal of aforesaid Annexure-C would indicate

that the same has been issued in Form No.XII in terms of

Rule 14(3) of the KCS Rules, 1960. Rule 14 of the KCS

Rules, 1960 reads as under:

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

"14. Notification of General Election. (1) The [Election Officer] shall with the approval of the CEC notify in Form XI the intended election referred to in Section 39-AA.

(2) The [Election Officer] shall in such notification specify.-

(i) the last date for making nominations which shall be the [seven] clear day before the date of election;

(ii) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, which shall be the day immediately following the last date for making nominations;

(iii) the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures, which shall be the fifth clear day before the date of election;

(iv) the date on which the poll shall, if necessary, be taken and the hours [between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.] during which the poll shall be taken; and

(v) the date before which the election shall be completed."

(3)(a) On the issue of the notification under sub-rule (1), the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form XII by displaying it on the notice board in his office and in the office of the co-operative society and at such other places as he deems necessary, inviting nominations for such election.

(b) In the said notice, the returning officer shall specify among other things the last date for receipt of nominations, the place at which

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

nominations are to be delivered, date of scrutiny of nominations, the last date for withdrawal of candidature, the date on which a poll shall, if necessary be taken and the hours [between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.] of poll and the date before which elections shall be completed which shall conform to the dates notified in that behalf by the Election Officer under sub-rule (2)."

17. Also relevant to refer to sub-rule (3) of

Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 which reads as under:

"(3) The Election Officer shall take steps for publication of voters list in the following manner, namely.-

(a) for publication of draft eligible electoral list, a list of defaulter, a list of members whose repayment falls due, before the election date clear fifty days;

(b) for calling objections, if any, calling upon the defaulter members to repay the amounts due to the co-operative societies on or before thirty clear days prior to the date of election;

(c) the scrutiny and verification of the voters list after payment by defaulters etc., clear twenty days before the date of election;

(d) for publication of final eligible voters list before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election;

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

Provided that the draft list of eligible members and delegates with right to vote, the list of defaulters and the list of other members and delegates who are not eligible to vote as also the final list of electoral rolls and the election calendar shall be announced on the notice board of the concerned co-operative society and its branches, if any, the local office of the department of co-operation, website if any of the co-operative society."

18. In the light of the aforesaid factual aspects of

the matter and the applicable provisions of law, contention

regarding violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of

Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 as raised by learned

counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the

following reasons:

i) Issuance of calendar of events, as noted above is

as contemplated under Rule 14 of the KCS Rules,

1960.

ii) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the KCS Rules,

mandates the Election Officer to issue notification

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

in the prescribed format, providing the list of

events or dates.

iii) In Clauses (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and (v) of sub-rule (2) of

Rule 14 of the KCS Rules, 1960 there is specific

and repeated mentioning of words 'date of

election', which would only indicate that the

'date of election' is different from the 'date of

issuance of calendar of events'. Clause (iv)

provides for specifying the 'date and time for

conducting the polls'.

iv) Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS

Rules, 1960 has to be read in conjunction with the

mandate provided under Clause (2) of Rule 14 of

the KCS Rules, 1960, lest the same would lead to

anomalous situation, in that, a party disputing the

'date of election' may refer to any of the dates

provided in the calendar of events as 'date of

election', which is neither the purport nor the

intent of the legislation.

- 25 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

v) There is no ambiguity in Clause (d) of sub-rule (3)

of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 which states

that the eligible voters list to be published before

fifteen clear days prior to the 'date of election'.

If the date of election is intended to be otherwise,

than the 'date of actual polling', it would have

been from the 'date of Notification of the

General Election' contemplated under Section 14

of the KCS Rules, 1960.

19. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the

counsel for the petitioners to consider fifteen clear days

period contemplated under Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of

Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 to be from the 'date of

calendar of events' and not from the 'date of actual

polling' cannot be accepted.

20. Having held as above, the other contentions

urged is with regard to manner and method of preparation

of voters list by the respondent No.6. As already noted

there has been consistent judicial discipline and

- 26 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

precedents that once the calendar of events are issued

and if the dispute raised involves questions of fact, the

Court shall not interfere. Exception, however, is indeed

provided only if the issue raised seeks to subserve the

progress of election and facilitates completion of election.

21. In the instant case, questions that are raised

with regard to non-consideration of eligibility of about

21,000 voters/members are as to whether these members

were served with notice as contemplated under Rule 13-D

of the KCS Rules, 1960? whether the service was

sufficient? and whether they had an opportunity to present

their case or not? These are the questions of fact which

cannot be gone into in this petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, inasmuch as consideration of the

same would neither subserve the progress of election nor

facilitate its completion. It is for this reason Section 70 of

the KCS Act, 1959 has been provided for the parties

aggrieved to canvass their grievance before the

- 27 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

appropriate authority which would adjudicate upon the

questions of fact.

22. This Court in the case of Mohammad Beary

and others vs. State of Karnataka (supra), referring to

the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant

Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)

Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another vs.

State of Maharashtra and others - (2001) 8 SCC 509

has held that the disputes with regard to preparation of

voters' list which forms integral part of election process,

the remedy available is under Section 70(2) of the KCS

Act, 1959.

23. The reliance placed on by learned counsel for

the petitioners on the authorities with regard to

maintainability of the writ petition are of no avail as they

significantly delve on the questions of law and not on the

questions of fact:

- 28 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

(a) In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh (supra), the question involved was refusal/non-allocation of the poll symbol by the Election Commissioner enabling the party therein to contest the election.

(b) In the case of Mysore and Chamrajnagar Co-

operative Bank Ltd., (supra), the issue involved was with regard to withdrawal of calendar of events. It is under such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court intervened in the matter and directed the election to be continued and concluded in expeditious manner.

(c) In the case of Aashish Kishor Gadkari vs. Election Commission of India in W.P.(L) No.33675/2024 dated 06.11.2024, the issue involved was the Returning Officer therein did not allow the petitioners to rectify the defects listed in the list of objections raised upon the scrutiny thereof. It had nothing to do with the process of preparation of voters list.

(d) The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon in the case of J.T.Pappalu Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd., (supra) is concerned, the question involved was pure one of law, in that the time period prescribed under Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules 1960, had not expired though the procedure prescribed under Rule 13-D had been completed.

(e) As regards the reliance placed on the judgment of the other Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri A.Ragavendra and others (supra), the order passed in W.P.No.107564/2024 dated 12.12.2024 in the case of Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra), this Court do not see any contrary view inasmuch as the

- 29 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

said judgments also concur with the view that election disputes shall be relegated to be resolved under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959.

(f) As regard to the other judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Sri Chetan vs. Smt.P.V.Kalpana (supra), while dealing with the maintainability, the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held, where the controversy involved is of question of law and not disputed questions of fact, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition. Thus, the line of judicial precedents and the discipline is

clear, in that petition as that of the one at hand involving

disputed questions of fact cannot be maintained.

24. As regards the declaration of election results of

respondent Nos.7 to 10 is concerned, Rule 14-G of the

KCS Rules, 1960 provides as under:

"14-G. Procedure in contested and uncontested election. - (1) If the number of contesting candidates in any area or constituency is more than the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, a poll shall be taken.

(2) If the number of such candidates in any constituency is equal to the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly

- 30 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

elected to fill these seats in Form XIX as may be appropriate.

(3) If the number of such candidates is less than the number of seats to be filled from that constituency or place, the returning officer shall declare all such candidates to be duly elected after withdrawal is over in Form XIX as may be appropriate and the [Election Officer] shall, with the approval of the Co-operative Election [Authority], call upon the society to elect a person or persons to fill the remaining seat or seats. After such election to fill the casual vacancy is over, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates duly elected to fill those casual vacancy seats in Form XX."

25. According to the private respondents, in

paragraph 5 of their affidavit accompanying the application

filed by them seeking themselves to be impleaded, it is

deposed as under:

"5. The proposed respondent No.7 to 12 are belongs to following class of members in terms of bye-law.

(a) Proposed Respondent-7- 'C' Class member (Primary Cooperative Societies Constituency) (Open category)

(b) Proposed Respondent-8 - 'B' Class member (member other than sugarcane growers constituency) (Open Category)

- 31 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

(c) Proposed Respondent-9 - 'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Woman Category).

(d) Proposed Respondent-10 - 'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Woman Category).

All the above class of members declared elected as a board of director of 4th respondent cooperative sugar factory, since nobody files nomination against them and declared unopposed (this fact was suppressed by the petitioners). Copies of the declaration made by the Returning Officer under Rule 14-G(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules 1960 (for short Rules 1960) are produced as Annexure-Proposed R7(a), (b) and (c).

(e) Proposed Respondent-11-'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Open Category)

(f) Proposed Respondent-12-'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Category- IIIB).

The above proposed respondents are contested for the office of board of directors of 4th respondent cooperative sugar factory. Copies of the acknowledgements are produced as Annexure Proposed R7(d) and (e)."

26. Since, there was no nomination filed against

respondent Nos.7 to 10, they were declared unopposed

- 32 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

and declaration of their results was published by the

Returning Officer in terms of Rule 14-G (2) of the KCS

Rules, 1960 which cannot be found fault with.

27. This brings to the third aspect of the matter as

to the consequences of the interim order passed by this

Court. The said issue is also no more res integra. In the

case of H.B.Veerabhadra Goud vs. Returning Officer

(supra) following questions fell for consideration of the

Division Bench of this Court:

1) When any election is stayed by an Interim Order granted by a Court, in any case, and the case is finally dismissed, whether the election should proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted or a fresh Calendar of Events should be issued ?

2) Whether the election to the offices of the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat at Alur, which is the subject matter of this Writ petition, should be held confining to the candidates who had filed nomination pursuant to the notice of election issued on 10.04.1987 before the issue of Stay Order by this Court or the election should be held by giving further time to the Members of the Panchayat to file nominations seeking election to those offices ?

- 33 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

and while answering the aforesaid questions, the Division

Bench of this Court at paragraphs 4 and 8 has held as

under :

"4. It is common ground that whenever an election is interrupted by an Interim Order of this Court and finally the petition is dismissed, the election must proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted. This is the correct position in law consistently applied in all such situations. It should be so because when a process of election had commenced lawfully, was interrupted by an Interim Order granted in a case and ultimately the case is dismissed, the election process must continue, otherwise it amounts nullifying the calendar of events even if finally the challenge failed and such a consequence cannot be permitted. For these reasons, we answer the first question-as follows:

"When any election is stayed by an Interim Order granted by a Court in any case and the case is finally dismissed, the election should proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted."

xxx xxx xxx

8. Before concluding, in view of our answer to the first question and in view of the complications which have arisen in this case, we consider it appropriate to state that whenever an election process is stayed pursuant to any Interim Order, the

- 34 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

Returning Officer should stop the process after any one of the events in the process of election. It is well known that every election consists of important events, such as,

(i) Last date and time for filing nomination,

(ii) Last date and time for withdrawal of nomination and the publication of final list of candidates,

(iii) Date of poll,

(iv) Counting of votes, and

(v) Declaration of results.

Therefore, it is also appropriate that whenever an Interim Order is granted, the Court granting the interim order should specify any one of the events after which the further events in the election should be stopped. However, even in the absence of such specification, an Interim Order of stay of election has to be implemented in a reasonable manner, which would not create practical difficulties for continuing the process, if and when it becomes necessary to do so in the light of the Final Order of the Court. Therefore, whenever the election is stayed the Returning Officer should stop further steps after any one of the events is completed and not in the middle and also make known to all concerned and in particular to the candidates, the stage at which the election process was stopped.""

- 35 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

28. Similar view had been taken in the case of H.V.

Prasanna (supra) wherein at paragraphs 14 and 18, the

Division Bench of the Court passed the following order:

"14. It is settled position of law that whenever the election process is interrupted by an order of the court on termination of the proceedings before the court, wherein the steps already taken for holding the election are not set aside or no direction is issued nullifying or infructuating the steps already taken to hold the election, the election process has to be continued from the stage at which it was interrupted provided the ultimate order of the court does not state otherwise. Provided further that as per the calendar of events issued for holding the election, at least the first stage of receiving the nomination paper had been completed by the time the interim order was either communicated or brought to the notice of the authority conducting the election. In the instant case, the first stage of the calendar of events viz., the receipt of the nomination papers was over by the time the interim order was brought to the notice of the Election Officer. The writ appeal was ultimately dismissed on 2-2-1988.

xxx xxx xxx

18. Even in Muthsami's case ((1988) 1 SCC 572: A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616) the Supreme Court has directed the Returning Officer to proceed with the election in accordance with law from the stage at which it was interrupted by the order of the High

- 36 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

Court. The direction issued by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1855/1987 to hold election to the office of the President and the Vice President of the CMC, Hassan, in accordance with law could only mean that the election process was to be continued from the stage it was interrupted by the interim order. The Division Bench was informed of the fact that the holding of election was stayed. This is clear from the earlier portion of para 15 of the order which is already reproduced. Para 15 starts with the following sentence:

"By virtue of the interim order, holding of election in question was stayed. Consequently, it is necessary to issue a fresh direction.""

29. The interim order passed by this Court on

26.09.2025 in the present petition reads as under:

"Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person.

Government Advocate is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Issue notice to respondents 4 and 6.

Process fee to be paid within a week's time.

Petitioners counsel is directed to serve two sets of copies of Writ Petition along with Annexures to Government Advocate.

Heard on interim relief.

Counsel Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur., submits that the fourth respondent factory has published the booklet on 09.09.2025 and there are about 23,410 shareholders. The petitioners are also the

- 37 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

shareholders, however, their names are not reflected in the eligible Voters' list. Counsel vehemently contends that the eligible Voter's list was published on 07.09.2025 and a Notification is issued on 10.09.2025 and effected on 12.09.2025. Hence, there is a violation of Rule 13-D(3)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. Counsel therefore, submits that an interim order may be granted.

A perusal of the Writ paper reflects that the eligible voters list is issued on 07.09.2025. However, the election process is commenced on 12.09.2025. Prima-facie, it appears that there is a violation of Rule 13-D(3)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. Under these circumstances, I deem it proper to issue an interim order as prayed for.

Counsel Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur., submits that hand delivery may be ordered.

Submission is noted. The Registry concerned is directed to issue hand delivery."

30. Thus, prima facie accepting the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court

had found that there was apparent violation of

Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules,

1960 in commencing the process of election before expiry

of fifteen clear days.

- 38 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

31. Now in view of this Court having held that there

is no violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of

Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960, the writ petition fails.

The same is liable to be dismissed.

32. The interim order was granted on 26.09.2025.

As on the date of interim order, the calendar of events up

to Sl.No.(ºÉZï) of Annexure-C have been completed. The

process of elections has been interrupted at the stage of

conducting of poll as per Sl.No.(L) of the calendar of

events. Therefore, the Returning Officer shall commence

and conclude left over process of election from the said

stage.

33. Consequently, the following:

ORDER

i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.

ii) The Returning Officer shall commence the process of election from the stage where it was stopped.

- 39 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054

HC-KAR

iii) The Returning Officer shall commence and conclude left over process of election from the stage of requirement of conducting polls as mentioned at Sl.No.(L) of the

calendar of events at Annexure-C within an outer limit of 15 days from today.

iv) The petitioners are at liberty to seek redressal of their grievance if any by raising dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if so advised.

In view of disposal of petition, if any pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed.

SD/-

(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE

CT:PK