Karnataka High Court
Mr. N. Raj Shekar Jain vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41217-DB
WA No. 359 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. N. RAJ SHEKAR JAIN
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O LATE PADMARAJ JAIN
NIRPAJE HOUSE AND VILLAGE
PUTTUR TQ - 574 203
D.K. DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N. SUKUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
by PRABHAKAR CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT
SWETHA
KRISHNAN MULITY STORIED BUILDING
Location: High BENGALURU - 560 001
Court of BY ITS SECRETARY.
Karnataka
2. RETURNING OFFICER
PUTTUR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK
PUTTUR TQ, D.K. DIST
PIN - 574 214.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41217-DB
WA No. 359 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. PUTTUR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK
PUTTUR TQ
D.K. DIST
REP. BY ITS MANAGER - 574 214.
4. STATE COOPERATIVE ELECTION
AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR TTMC A BLOCK
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. BALAPPA @ SUNDARA POOJARY
S/O LATE ANNI POOJARY
AGED 61 YEARS
BADAVA HOUSE
CHIKKAMUDNUR P.O. & VILLAGE
PUTTUR TQ
D.K. DIST - 574 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2,
SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3,
RESPONDENT No.4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED &
SRI RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 03/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.814/2025 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41217-DB
WA No. 359 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in WP.No.814/2025 (CS-EL/M). The learned Single Judge
dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that it had become
infructuous with liberty to the appellant to raise a dispute under
Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if so
advised, in accordance with law.
2. The appellant had filed the aforementioned writ petition
impugning an order dated 12.01.2025 passed by the second
respondent, whereby the appellant's nomination to be elected as a
Member of the Board of Management to the respondent No.3
(Bank) had been rejected. The nomination of the appellant was
rejected on the ground of a variance in the spelling of his name as
recorded in the eligible voters list in the Area and the name
reflected in the nomination papers. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant had filed the said writ petition on 13.01.2025. However
NC: 2025:KHC:41217-DB
HC-KAR
on the said date, the respondent No.5 was unanimously elected. It
is material to note that respondent No. 5 was not arrayed as a
respondent in the writ petition and thus no relief against the
respondent could have been sought.
3. As noted above, the appellant's petition was confined to
assailing the order dated 12.01.2025, whereby his nomination was
effected. Although respondent No.5 was elected on 13.01.2025,
the appellant did not take any steps for amending the writ petition
or seeking any relief to challenge the election. In the aforesaid
circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
petition, leaving it open for the appellant to avail any remedy that
may otherwise be available under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act, 1959.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decision
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L. Ramakrishnappa v.
Presiding Officer: ILR 1991 KAR 4421, in support of his
contention that the Court does have the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in case any illegality is
committed during the course of holding the election to the Office of
any Authority or Body which is regulated by statutory provisions.
NC: 2025:KHC:41217-DB
HC-KAR
There is no cavil in the aforesaid proposition. However, it is also
well settled that remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India are discretionary remedies. The learned Single Judge found
that the election result had been declared on 13.01.2025, even
before the Court granted any interim order.
5. As noted above, the appellant has not challenged the
election of respondent No.5 in the petition. The appellant merely
raised a challenge to the rejection of the nomination. Thus in any
event, the election of respondent No.5 could not be interfered with
in the said petition. Respondent No.5 is also not arrayed as a party
in the said petition.
6. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of
the learned Single Judge in declining to entertain the petition. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SD
