Disposed

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2020WP/108570/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged deletion from voter list and validity of Act sections. Court held deletion invalid due to lack of notice. Petitioners voted per interim order, dropping constitutional challenge. Writs disposed without examining section validity.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of petitioners from voter list set aside due to non-service of notice; writ petitions disposed on facts without examining validity of Act section.

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 26^TH day of February 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.108570-108600 OF 2020 (CS-EL/M)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

BHIMAPPA S/O SATYAPPA MOKASHI AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO: 116, PIN: 587117.

¶8

ASHOK S/O MALLAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO: 3, PIN: 587117.

¶9

APPASAB S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR APPAJIGOL AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO: 7, PIN: 587117.

¶10

¶11

RENUKA W/O SHANKAREPPA SINGAREDDI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:34, PIN: 587117.

¶12

RAGHAVENDRA S/O NINGAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:35, PIN: 587117. 6. NINGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:37, PIN: 587117.

¶13

NILAVVA W/O TIPPANNA HOSARADDI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:39, PIN: 587117.

¶14

SHIVAPPA S/O MALLAPPA GURANI AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI,

¶15

¶16

DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:48, PIN: 587117. 9. JAGADISH S/O BASAPPA LAXANI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:58, PIN: 587117.

¶17

KASTURI W/O RAMAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:67, PIN: 587117.

¶18

SANTOSH S/O SHANKAREPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:71, PIN: 587117. 12. MAHADEVI W/O TIMMANNA KALHAL AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:85, PIN: 587117.

¶19

GOVINDAPPA S/O APPANNA ONAIK

¶20

¶21

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:97, PIN: 587117.

¶22

GANGUBAI W/O SUBHASH APPAJIGOL AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:100, PIN: 587117.

¶23

HANAMANT S/O YANKAPPA ISARADDI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:106, PIN: 587117.

¶24

AYYAWWA W/O HANAMANT GALI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:2, PIN: 587117.

¶25

BABU S/O SHIVALINGAPPA DESAI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:121, PIN: 587117.

¶26

¶27

BASAVARAJ S/O NINGAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:123, PIN: 587117. 19. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O IRAPPA APPAJIGOL AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:128, PIN: 587117. 20. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SHANKAREPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:130, PIN: 587117. 21. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O TIMMAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:131, PIN: 587117. 22. VINOD S/O VEERAPPA NASI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:139, PIN: 587117. 23. DASTAGIRSAB S/O RASOOLSAB JAMADAR

¶28

¶29

AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:145, PIN: 587117.

¶30

IBRAHIM S/O RASOLASAB JAMADAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:150, PIN: 587117.

¶31

SAVITA W/O GOUDAPPA SINGARADDI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:170, PIN: 587117. 26. VENKANNA S/O TAMMANNAPPA YALLARADDI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:175, PIN: 587117. 27. SAVITA W/O SHREENIVAS YALARADDI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:177, PIN: 587117.

¶32

SHANKARAPPA TAMMANNAPPA SINGARADDI

¶33

¶34

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:180, PIN: 587117.

¶35

PANDAPPA S/O KALLAPPA MOKASHI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:41, PIN: 587117. 30. SUSHILABAI S/O SRTIPATI NAIK AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:376, PIN: 587117. 31. SATISH S/O SRIPAL NAIK AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, SL.NO:386, PIN: 587117. ...PETITIONERS (By Sri. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶37

THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY

¶38

¶39

3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK SHANTI NAGAR, TTMC BUILDING, BENGALURU-560002.

¶40

THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAGALKOTE.

¶41

THE RETURNING OFFICER PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶42

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L.HAVARGI, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4) SRI. P.S.ANTAKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5

¶44

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 20(2)(a-iv) (a-v) OF THE KARANTAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT IS ULTRA VIRUS AND LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE AND OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 243ZI AND 243ZO IF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;

¶45

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

¶47

ORDER

¶48

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) as ultra vires and also violative of Articles 243ZI and 243ZO of the Constitution of India and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the election without applying the provision of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act.

¶49

This Court by interim order dated 10.1.2020 permitted the petitioners to vote in the election of the respondent-Society without reference to Section 20(2)(aiv) and (a-v) of the Act, if they are otherwise eligible to cast their votes, subject to the result of these writ petitions.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners voted in the election in pursuance to interim direction of this Court. Learned

¶51

¶52

counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not pressing the prayer challenging the constitutional validity of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act and that the writ petitions could be disposed of on the ground that the respondent-Society could not have applied the provision of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act to the petitioners or to delete the petitioners’ name from the eligible voters’ list. It is also contended that the petitioners have not received the notice of Annual General Body Meeting as required under Rule 14-AJ of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘Rules, 1960). Rule 14-AJ(2) of the Rules 1960 reads as follows:

¶53

14-AJ(2).- The Chief Executive, after the board decides the date and time of the general meeting to be convened, shall convene the annual general meeting by giving a notice of at least fifteen clear days as specified in the bye-laws. However, in the case of exigency, a special general meeting may be convened by giving a notice of at least ten clear days in writing. The notice may be sent in the following modes, namely.-

¶54

¶55

(a) by ordinary post; or [by bulk post; or by courier]

¶56

(b) by e-mail; or (c) by local delivery under proper

¶57

acknowledgement; and

¶58

(d) by publication in the newspaper having wide circulation in the area of operation.

¶59

The above Rule contemplates, giving of 15 days

¶60

clear notice of annual general meeting and same shall be sent by the modes mentioned therein including ordinary post. The respondent-Society is represented by learned counsel. The respondent-society has not filed any objection nor controverts the contention of the petitioners that they have not been served with the notice of annual general meeting of the respondent-Society. If the petitioners were not served with the notice of the annual general meeting of the Society as required under Rule 14-AJ of the Rules 1960, one cannot expect the petitioners to attend the annual general meeting of the Society. Hence, only on the ground that the petitioners have not attended three consecutive annual general meeting, the respondent-Society could not

¶61

¶62

have deleted the names of the petitioners from the eligible voters’ list as they have not been served with notice of annual general meeting. Prima facie, principles of natural justice not having been followed, I hold that the petitioners could not have been deleted from the eligible voters’ list on the ground that they have not attended three consecutive annual general meeting of the respondent-Society in the absence of service of notice of the annual general meeting of the Society. Presently, as the petitioners have exercised their franchise in the election held to the Society in pursuance to the interim order and the petitioners have not pressed the prayer-A with regard to validity of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, the writ petitions would no more survive for consideration. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitions are disposed as above without examining the validity of the above stated provision.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Kms

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Appanna Vannur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple Vs the State of Karnataka

Jalaluddin S/O. Hussain Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Gundappa Gunaki S/O Basappa Gunaki Vs State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun S/O Vishnu Ashtekar Vs State of Karnataka