Allowed

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2020WP/147184/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an election dispute petition. The high court held that the adverse order violated natural justice principles as the petitioner did not receive a proper notice before the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.06.2020 set aside and remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration after issuing fresh notice.

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.147184 OF 2020 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.AMARAGUNDAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT:62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DAIRY PRODUCT, R/O: MITTIKELLURU, POST: MATTURU-584125 TQ:MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR, PRESIDENT, MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., MITTEKELLUR AND KUNIKELLUR, POST: MATTUR-584125 TQ: MASKI DIST: RAICHUR

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

2 . THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPEARTIVE SOCIETIES KALABURAGI PRANT, RAICHUR DIST: RAICHUR

¶14

¶15

3 . RAICHUR BELLARY DISTRICT MILK UNION CO-OPERATIVE LTD, BELLARY BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶16

4 . THE RETURNING OFFICER, A.C., APPOINTED FOR BELLARY, RAICHUR & KOPPAL DISTRICT CO-OPEATIVE MILK UNION LTD.,

¶17

5 . SRI. BHIMANAGOUDA S/O VENKANAGOUDA AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: POST MAKAPUR-584 125 TQ LINGUSURU, DIST: RAICHUR

¶18

6 . THE SECRETARY MILK, PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD METTEKELLUR AND KUNIKELLUR, POST: MATTUR-584125 TQ: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1, 2 AND 4 SRI. GANGADHAR J. M., ADV. FOR R3 SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADV. FOR R5 SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADV. FOR R6)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.2 DT.22.06.2020 IN DISPUTE NO. SAN.NI. RAA:V-4:DAAVA:22:2019-20/273, AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.SAN.NI.RAA:V4:DAAVA:22:2019-20/273, this writ petition is filed.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

The petitioner is the President of Primary Society Mittekellur and Kunikellur Milk Producers Co-operative

¶28

Society. The petitioner was elected as President to the respondent No.6-Society. The elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.3 – Milk Union was held on 03.04.2019. In the said election, the petitioner was sent as a delegate of respondent No.6 - Society to vote and contest from Raichur constituency. The respondent No.3 Milk Union constituency consists of three districts i.e., Bellary, Koppal and Raichur. From each district 4 directors are to be elected to the respondent No.3 Union. Out of 12

¶29

¶30

directors 4 directors were elected unanimously and for remaining 8 directors, election was held.

¶31

The petitioner is a candidate from Raichur constituency and from Raichur, 3 constituencies were declared as unanimous whereas the petitioner and respondent No.5 contested the election. In the said election respondent No.5 secured 17 votes, whereas the petitioner has secured 12 votes.

¶32

The respondent No.5 was not eligible to contest the election as the representing constituency Makapur Milk Producers Society was not eligible as the respondent No.5 had not fulfilled the required conditions. The respondent No.5 is ineligible to contest the election. The Returning Officer has declared respondent No.5 as a return candidate.

¶33

The petitioner aggrieved by the declaration of respondent No.5 as a return candidate to the respondent No.3 Milk Union, has filed an election

¶34

¶35

petition before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner which is dated 16.06.2020 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 20.06.2020 at 11 a.m. Copy of the said notice was not received by the petitioner on time. Hence, for the said reason the petitioner could not appear before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 recorded the presence of respondent No.5 and posted the matter for orders on 22.06.2020 and on 22.06.2020, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Hence this petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the records.

¶37

The short point that would arise for consideration before this Court is, whether the respondent No.2 was justified in dismissing the

¶38

¶39

election petition filed by the petitioner in violation of principles of audi alteram partem ?

¶40

The notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 16.06.2020 fixing the date of hearing as 20.06.2020 at 11 a.m. was not received by the petitioner on time, as the said notice was dispatched on 23.06.2020 ie., after the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner has produced Annexure-D ie., copy of the postal receipts to show that the notice dated 16.06.2020 was actually dispatched on 23.06.2020 which is after the passing of the impugned order. For the said reason, the petitioner could not appear on 20.06.2020. The respondent No.2, recording the presence of respondent No.5, passed the impugned order which is in violation of principles of audi alteram partem.

¶41

¶42

In view of the above, this Court is of the view

¶43

that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

The impugned order dated 22.06.2020 in Dispute No.SAN.NI.RAA:V4:DAAVA:22:2019-20/273 passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside and remitted to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration.

¶47

The respondent No.2 shall issue fresh notice well in advance to the parties intimating the date of hearing and thereafter proceed to decide the election dispute expeditiously.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa 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 Lakshmi Venkateshwara Saw Mill Vs the Chief Conservator of Forest

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari Vs National Highwa Auathority of India

Kallappa Murugeppa Awati Vs the Deputy Commissioner

One Roof Solutions Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar Vs the Secretary

The New Vijaya Recreation Club (R) Vs State of Karnataka