Disposed

Smt.Venkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2022WP/7932/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging voter list preparation without specific compliance of Cooperative Societies Act by relying on a recent precedent. Court directed election results announcement including petitioner votes while reserving liberty for statutory disputes.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by following H.S. Raju order; respondents directed to announce results including petitioner votes; liberty reserved under Section 70(2) of KCA.

Smt.Venkamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7932/2022 [CS-EL/M]

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

1 SMT.VENKAMMA W/O ANNAIAPPA AGED 59 YEARS

¶6

2 SRI.C.J.RAMACHANDRAMURTHY S/O GOPALAPPA AGED 49 YEARS

¶7

3 SRI.C.N.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 48 YEARS

¶8

4 SMT.N.SAROJAMMA W/O D.NARAYANA GOWDA AGED 65 YEARS

¶9

5 SRI.C.K.SATHYANARAYANA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 55 YEARS

¶10

6 SMT.YASHODAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 60 YEARS

¶11

7 SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O GOPALAIAH AGED 58 YEARS

¶12

8 SRI.C.N.RAMAIAH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 70 YEARS

¶13

²

¶14

9 SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O C.N.RAMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS

¶15

10 SMT.RAJAMMA W/O C.N.GOPALAIAH AGED 59 YEARS

¶16

11 SRI.M.GOPALAIAH S/O MARANNA AGED 50 YEARS

¶17

12 SMT.VENKATAMMA W/O M.KRISHNAPPA AGED 65 YEARS

¶18

13 SRI.M.RAVIKUMAR S/O MARANNA AGED 55 YEARS

¶19

14 SMT.VIJAYAMMA W/O C.N.GOWDAIAH AGED 55 YEARS

¶20

15 SMT.AKKAYAMMA W/O PILLAPPA AGED 58 YEARS

¶21

16 SMT.RADHAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 50 YEARS

¶22

17 SRI.MARIGOWDA S/O KEMPAIAH AGED 51 YEARS

¶23

18 SMT.RADHAMMA W/O RAJAGOPAL AGED 48 YEARS

¶24

³

¶25

19	SMT.NEELAMMA
	W/O C.N.GOPALAIAH AGED 58 YEARS
20	SMT.SHANATHAMMA W/O K.RAJANNA AGED 52 YEARS
21	SRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O MARICHANNAPPA AGED 65 YEARS
22	SRI.SANJEEVAIAH S/O CHIKKANNAPPA AGED 70 YEARS
23	SMT.THIMMAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 60 YEARS
24	SMT.H.G.VIJAYAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED 48 YEARS
25	SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
	W/O GOPALAIAH K
	AGED 55 YEARS
26	SMT.THAYAMMA W/O GOPALAIAH AGED 72 YEARS
27	SMT.DYAVAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA AGED 68 YEARS
28	SMT.INDRAMMA
	W/O RAMESH
	AGED 45 YEARS

¶26

⁴

¶27

29 SRI.S.RAMAIAH S/O SUBBARAYAPPA AGED 52 YEARS

¶28

30 SMT.MANJAMMA W/O S.RAMAIAH AGED 52 YEARS

¶29

31 SRI.V.RAMANNA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED 52 YEARS

¶30

32 SMT.GAYATHRAMMA W/O GOPALAIAH AGED 50 YEARS

¶31

33 SRI.LAKSHMANAMURTHY S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 48 YEARS

¶32

34 SRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O MADDURAIAH AGED 42 YEARS

¶33

35 SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O RAMAIAH AGED 55 YEARS

¶34

36 SRI.R.KRISHNAPPA S/O T.RAMAIAH AGED 65 YEARS

¶35

37 SRI.NARAYANAPPA S/O HANUMANTHRAYAPPA AGED 58 YEARS

¶36

38 SMT.KEMPAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 65 YEARS

¶37

⁵

¶38

39 SRI.RAJANNA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED 58 YEARS

¶39

40 SRI.S.ANANDARAMA S/O SUBBAIAH AGED 45 YEARS

¶40

41 SRI.RAJANNA S/O PILLAPPA AGED 40 YEARS

¶41

42 SRI.G.NANJEGOWDA . S/O GOPALAIAH AGED 56 YEARS

¶42

43 SRI.VENUGOPAL S/O GOPALAIAH AGED 40 YEARS

¶43

44 SMT.RENUKAMMA . W/O B.MUNIYAPPA AGED 60 YEARS

¶44

45 SRI.S.THIMMEGOWDA S/O SUBBARAYAPPA AGED 65 YEARS

¶45

46 SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR . S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 40 YEARS

¶46

47 SRI.KRISHNAIAH S/O RANGAIAH AGED 60 YEARS

¶47

48 SMT.GOPAMMA W/O APPAJAPPA AGED 62 YEARS

¶48

⁶

¶49

49 SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O SHIVANANDA AGED 55 YEARS

¶50

50 SRI.N.GURURAJA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 50 YEARS

¶51

51 SMT.SUSHEELAMMA W/O GURURAJU AGED 50 YEARS

¶52

52 SMT.KEMPAMMA W/O HANUMANNA AGED 65 YEARS

¶53

53 SRI.NAGARAJU S/O HANUMANNA AGED 43 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-561 203. …PETITIONERS

¶54

(BY SRIK.RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADEVOCATE) AND:

¶55

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION MS BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶56

2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKER ROAD, NO.1, BANGALORE-560052.

¶57

⁷

¶58

3 THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE URBAN, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶59

4 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3^RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶60

5 CHALLAHALLI HALU UTHPADAKARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA CHALLAHALLI, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶61

6 THE RETURNING OFFICER CHALAHALLI HALU UTHPADAKARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA CHALLAHALLI, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-561 203.

¶62

…RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY SMT.H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.T.L.KIRANKUMAR, ADV. FOR R4 & R6; SRI.PATIL KALYANRAO SHANKER RAO, ADV. FOR R5).

¶64

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE THE VOTER LIST OF R5 SOCIETY FOR THE TERM 2022-27 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LIST OF MEMBERS WITHOUT INSISTING FOR COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 20 [a-iv][av] THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶65

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶66

⁸

¶67

ORDER

¶68

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶69

“i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents to prepare the voter list of respondent No.5 Society for the term 2022-27 in accordance with the list of members without insisting for compliance of Section 20 (a-iv) (a-v) the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act.

¶70

ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, permitting the petitioners cast their votes for election to respondent No.5 Society scheduled to be held from 13.04.2022.

¶71

iii). Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.”

¶72

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for the respondent No.5

¶73

⁹

¶74

and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 6

¶75

and Perused the material on record.

¶76

On 12.04.2022, this Court passed the

¶77

following order:

¶78

“Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶79

Learned counsel Sri.T.L.Kiran Kumar, is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.4 and 6.

¶80

Issue notice to respondent No.5.

¶81

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to serve two sets of copies of the writ petition along with annexures on learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 6 and a copy of the writ petition along with annexures on the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶82

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there are 184 members in the respondent No.5-Co-operative Society, however by virtue of the impugned list of voters as per Annexure-D only 66 members are shown as persons eligible to vote. Learned counsel submits that no reasons are assigned not enlisting the petitioners in the voters list. However, since elections are scheduled to be held on 13.04.2022

¶83

¹⁰

¶84

and having found that there are no reasons assigned in Annexure-D for non-inclusion in the voters list, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.6- Returning Officer to permit the petitioners to cast their votes in the elections. But, the votes cast by the petitioners shall be kept in a separate ballot box and the results shall not be announced by the Returning Officer without specific orders of this Court.

¶85

However, learned counsel or the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would not insist upon the prayer seeking direction to permit the petitioners to vote without insisting for compliance of Section 20 (2)(a-iv) & (a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Learned counsel has also submitted that he would file necessary application to delete the said portion of the prayer made in the prayer column.

¶86

Re-list this matter on 20.04.2022.”

¶87

Learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶88

learned AGA jointly submits that in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of H.S. Raju and others Vs. State of Karnataka –

¶89

W.P.No.8502/2022 C/W W.P.No.8477/2022

¶90

dated 07.06.2022 . It is therefore submitted that

¶91

¹¹

¶92

even the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said petition.

¶93

A perusal of the material on record and

¶94

the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of H.S. Raju’s case (supra) will indicate that after directing the respondents to announce the results, this Court has disposed of the petition reserving liberty in favour of the parties to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including the remedy under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, if they are aggrieved by the results.

¶95

In view of the aforesaid judgment of this

¶96

Court in H.S. Raju’s case (supra) , I am of the considered opinion that even the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

¶97

In the result, I pass the following:

¶98

¹²

¶99

ORDER

¶100

(i) The petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in H.S. Raju and others Vs. State of Karnataka –

¶101

W.P.No.8502/2022 C/W

¶102

W.P.No.8477/2022 dated 07.06.2022.

¶103

(ii) The concerned respondents are directed to announce the results of the aforesaid election forthwith, including the votes cast by the petitioners.

¶104

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including raising a dispute under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.

¶105

(iv) It is made clear that all rival contentions between the parties as well as the impleading applicants are kept open and no

¶106

¹³

¶107

opinion is expressed on the same and this order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties including impleading applicants.

¶108

Sd/JUDGE

¶109

NC.

Smt.Venkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Venkamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Basaveshwara Stone Crushers (P) Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Ascendas Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Himalaya Drug Company Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-Ii)

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax

Kum. Madhuri S Vs Karnataka State Law University

Sri D Shivkumar Vs Karnataka State Law University