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