Partly allowed

Smt. Radha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2024WP/1968/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Members of a milk producers' co-operative society petitioned to be included in the final eligible voters' list for the society's board election after Rule 13-D(2-A) was allegedly breached. The High Court partly allowed the petition, directing the Returning Officer to count their votes and announce results, while leaving voter-eligibility questions open for adjudication under Section 70(2)(c).

What did the court decide?

Results of the 24.01.2024 board election ordered announced by counting petitioners' votes, kept separately sealed and listed, with eligibility disputes left open under Section 70(2)(c).

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1968 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RADHA W/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.9.

¶9

SMT YASHODAMMA W/O RAJANNA R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.107.

¶10

SMT NAGAMMA D/OMARUKULAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.108.

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT RATHNAMMA N D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.1.

¶13

SMT NAGARATHMMA, D/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.2.

¶14

SMT RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.6.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶16

SMT NARAYANAMMA, D/O SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.12

¶17

SMT SHARADAMMA, D/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.15.

¶18

SMT PILAMMA, W/O LATE C GUDIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.55.

¶19

SMT AMBUJAKSHI, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 141

¶20

SMT NIRMALA N B W/O D K MUNIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 70

¶21

SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/O PILLANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 80

¶22

SMT PREMA V A W/O RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 81

¶23

SMT SHANTHAMMA C/O RAJABABU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 100

¶24

SMT LAKSHAMMA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶26

D/O YARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 101.

¶27

SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.102

¶28

SMT VARALAKSHMAMMA W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 62

¶29

SMT VARALAKSHAMMA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 7

¶30

SMT KAMASHAMBHA W/O MANJUANTHA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 111

¶31

SMT MUNITHAYAMMA W/O BACHHANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 94

¶32

SMT SOWMYA R D/O RAMAIAH M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 92

¶33

SMT RATHNAMMA W/O PILLA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 82

¶34

SMT ANJINAMMA D/O NAGAPPA,

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶36

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 103

¶37

SMT RADHAMMA C/O SHIVAMURTHY V G AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 129

¶38

SMT RUKMANI V M D/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 135

¶39

SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 101

¶40

SMT C A ASHA D/O ANJINAPPA C B AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 142

¶41

SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 122

¶42

SMT M SUNANDAMMA D/O BALAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 50

¶43

SMT N PARVATHAMMA D/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 112

¶44

SMT SHANTHAMMA M C/O M SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶46

MEMBERSHIP NO 136

¶47

SMT R SHRUTHI W/O KESHVANTHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO 139 (PETITIONER 1 TO 32 ARE R/AT VARADENAHALLI CHANNARAYANAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562129) (SENIOR CITIZENS BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 20, 22, 30 & 31).

¶48

…PETITIONERS

¶49

(BY SRI PRAKASH SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION, M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶52

VARADENAHALLI, WOMEN MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, VARADENAHALLI CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562129, REP. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE (REG UNDER THE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959).

¶53

STATE CO-OPERATION ELECTION AUTHORITY, REP BY ELECTION COMMISIONER 3^RD FLOOR TTMCA BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶55

RETURNING OFFICER VARADENAHALLI WOMEN MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD AND INSPECTOR CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129.

¶56

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, OF BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5 SRI T L KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR RECORDS PURSUANT TO CALENDAR OF EVENTS ANNEXURE - A DATED 03/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ETC.

¶60

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

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶63

petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the

¶64

respondent-State.

¶65

Secretary of the respondent No.2 -Society is present before this Court.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶68

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 in the election to the Board of respondent No.2-Society which was scheduled on 24.01.2024.

¶69

This Court by way of interim order permitted the petitioners to cast vote in the said election. However, the result of the election was withheld.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the mandatory requirements of Rule 13-D(2-A) 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.

¶71

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent - Society would fairly submit that the Society has not followed the mandatory requirements of the aforementioned Rule. No

¶72

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶73

specific objection is raised relating to the eligibility of the petitioners to contest in the election.

¶74

At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of

¶75

H S RAJU AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

¶76

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

¶77

It is relevant to note that merely because the petitioners were permitted to vote in the election to the Board of the respondent-Society, it does not mean that all the petitioners had the eligibility to vote in the election. It is quite possible that all or some had the eligibility to vote or may had incurred disqualification to vote. Merely because procedures contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies 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 vote or not, is a

¶78

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶79

question of fact. Same is to be decided in a proceeding under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

¶80

Hence, the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in-part .

¶83

(ii) Returning Officer shall announce the results of the election to the Board of 2^nd respondent - Society held on 24.01.2024 by counting the votes of the petitioners.

¶84

(iii) 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 eligibility of the petitioners to vote in the election to the Board of respondentSociety, the said dispute shall be decided without being influenced by the interim order granted by this Court permitting the petitioners to vote in the election to the board of respondent-society. It is made clear that this Court while granting interim order in favour of the petitioners, did not give any finding on the eligibility of the petitioners to vote in the election to the Board of the respondent-Society.

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:6177 WP No. 1968 of 2024

¶87

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

¶88

(v) If any such dispute relating to the eligibility of the petitioners to vote in the election to the Board of respondent-Society is raised, the effect of holding the petitioners ineligible to vote and excluding such votes and excluding ineligible candidates on the final outcome of the election results shall also be taken into account before passing final orders.

¶89

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

¶90

(vii) 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.

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

¶92

GVP

Smt. Radha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Radha 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

The Virajpet Agricultural Produce Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., Vs Smt. K.N. Parvathy

Sri Honnegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Preerambi Vs the Davanagere Urban Co. Op Society Bank Ltd.

Smt Chandramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniraju. N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G S Mahadeva, Vs the State of Karnataka