Dismissed

Smt. Chikkathayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/1796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought inclusion in the voters' list of a co-operative society election, alleging non-compliance with Rule 13-D(2-A). The court dismissed the petition as filed after publication of the calendar of events, directed announcement of results excluding petitioners' votes, and left eligibility questions to Section 70(2)(c) dispute proceedings.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Returning Officer to announce results excluding petitioners' votes; ballots segregated and preserved for any future Section 70(2)(c) dispute.

Smt. Chikkathayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1796 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA, W/O NINGACHARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶10

SRI RAMACHANDRA, S/O KANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

SRI H C SHIVALINGAIAH, S/O CHANNEGOWDA @ KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI H A SIDDAIAH, S/O SIDDEGOWDA @ BHUSIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶14

R/AT B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT. (NOT CLAIM THE SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT) (NOTE: WHO ARE THE SENIOR CITIZENS ARE THEIR IN THE PETITIONERS, THERE ARE NOT CLAIMING ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS IN THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, VIKASASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSIONER 3^RD FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR TTMC A BLOCK, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,BANGALORE-560027.

¶21

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BEHIND SUDDARTHA THEATER, R.P ROAD, MANDYA-571401.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERAITVE SOCIETIES, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶23

THE RETURNING OFFICER, B.HOSURU MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571416.

¶24

THE B HOSURU MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., B HOSURU VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571416. REP BY ITS SECRETARY (REGISTERED UNDER THE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1950).

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1, R3-R5, SRI T L KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI A MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO 6 INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS LIST AND ELIGIBLE CONTESTING LIST AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONTEST AND VOTE IN THE ELECTION TO THE R6 SOCIETY WHICH IS SCHEDULE

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶28

TO BE HELD ON 31.01.2024, SO FAR CONCERN TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, learned advocate appearing for the Co-operative Election Authority and learned advocate appearing for the respondent-society.

¶32

This writ petition is essentially filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to include the names of the petitioners in the final eligible voters' list and permit the petitioners to vote and contest in the election to the board of respondent

¶33

No.6 - society which was scheduled on 31.01.2024.

¶34

This Court by way of interim order permitted the petitioners to cast vote and permitted to file nomination paper to contest in the said election. However, the result

¶35

of the election was withheld.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the mandatory requirements of Rule 13-D(2A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 have not been followed while preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list. Thus, it is urged that the petitioners should be treated as eligible voters' and their votes need to be counted as valid votes.

¶38

Learned counsel for the 6^th respondent - Society disputes the claim of the petitioners and contends that requirements of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1960' for short) are followed.

¶39

At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of H S RAJU AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶40

AND OTHERS (2022(4) AKR 775) has permitted the votes to be counted and the election results to be announced keeping open all other contentions to be

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶42

adjudicated in appropriate forum under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959

¶43

(Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1959' for short).

¶44

It is relevant to note that merely because the petitioners were permitted to contest and vote in the election to the board of the respondent-society, it does not mean that all the petitioners had the eligibility to contest and vote in the election. It is quite possible that all or some had the eligibility to contest and vote or may had incurred disqualification to contest and vote. Merely because procedures contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 are not followed, it does not mean that the disqualification if any incurred, is cured. Whether the petitioners did incur the disqualification to contest and vote or not, is a question of fact. Same is to be decided in a proceeding under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959.

¶45

Admittedly, the writ petition is filed post publication of calendar of events. Under these

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶47

circumstances, this Court has to follow the ratio laid down in the case of Mohammad Beary & Others vs The State

¶48

Of Karnataka & Others (Writ Petition No.29271/2023 & Connected matters). In the said proceeding, this Court has taken a view that the writ petition challenging the electoral roll post publication of calendar of events is not permissible.

¶49

The law laid down in H S Raju 's case supra

¶50

cannot be made applicable in this petition as the respondent-society is disputing the claim made by the petitioners which was not the case in H S Raju supra.

¶51

Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is dismissed .

¶54

(ii) Returning Officer shall announce the results of

¶55

the election to the Board of 6^th respondent - Society held on 31.01.2024 by excluding the votes cast by the petitioners.

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶57

(iii) The petitioners who have contested the election pursuant to the interim order cannot be treated as the candidates in the fray.

¶58

(iv) If any person entitled to raise a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, raises a dispute under the said provision questioning the election results, the said dispute shall be decided without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition. It is made clear that this Court has not given any finding on the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election to the board of the

¶59

respondent-society.

¶60

(v) The question as to the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election is kept open to be decided in a dispute if any, raised in this regard.

¶61

(vi) If any such dispute relating to the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election to the board of respondent-society is raised, all relevant questions concerning the correctness of

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5031 WP No. 1796 of 2024

¶63

eligible and ineligible voters' list and non-compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and its effect on the election shall be considered.

¶64

(vii) The ballot papers containing the votes cast by the petitioners shall be kept in a separate sealed box after counting.

¶65

(viii) While counting the votes cast by the petitioners, a separate list shall be prepared disclosing the number of votes cast by the petitioners in favour of the candidates. Said list shall be separately maintained and be furnished to the authority, if summoned, while hearing election dispute in case such dispute is raised. If the dispute is raised, same shall be decided within six months from the date of presentation of the petition.

¶66

BRN/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Chikkathayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chikkathayamma 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

Sri. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivanna. S. J. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.C . Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandra C C Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chinnammayya Vs the State of Karnataka

B Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka