Dismissed

Sri. Chikkaramanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2024WP/1970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Members of a milk producers co-operative society sought mandamus to be included in the voters list without meeting Section 20(2)(a-iv)/(a-v) requirements, citing COVID-19 restrictions, and to have their votes counted. The court found a disputed factual question on minimum services and held the writ petition not maintainable, dismissing it while permitting an election dispute under Section 70(2)(c)

What did the court decide?

Petitioners may file election dispute under Section 70(2)(c); their votes preserved in sealed ballot box for use in that dispute; votes not counted in results.

Sri. Chikkaramanna Vs State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1970 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHIKKARAMANNA S/O LATE PAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO.222.

¶9

SRI. DEVRAJA V S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,MEMBERSSHIP NO. 22.

¶10

SMT. SHARADHAMMA S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO. 23.

¶11

SRI. MUNIYAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO.57.

¶12

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

¶13

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY V S/O LATE PILLAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO. 142.

¶14

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO.54.

¶15

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO.113.

¶16

SRI. RAMACHANDRA K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO. 114.

¶17

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO. 94.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶19

SRI. P DEVARAJU S/O LATE PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO. 90.

¶20

SRI MANJUANTHA K S/O KURAPPA

¶21

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,MEMBRSHIP NO 45

¶22

SMT AMMAYAMMA W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 110

¶23

SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 109

¶24

SRI SRIRAM D S/O LATE DEVAPPA

¶25

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 205

¶26

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O DODDANAGAPPA

¶27

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 56

¶28

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE SONNAPPA

¶29

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 134

¶30

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA

¶31

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 15

¶32

SRI PRADEEPA K S/O KRISHANAPPA

¶33

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 212

¶34

SRI RAMESH D S/O DEVAPPA

¶35

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 198

¶36

SMT MUNINANJAMMA W/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 97

¶37

SRI DEVARAJ D S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO 203

¶38

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶39

SRI NAGESH D M S/O K MARAPPA

¶40

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 116

¶41

SMT ANJINAMMA W/O K MARAPPA

¶42

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 117

¶43

SRI RAVI A S/O LATE ANJINAPPA

¶44

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 91

¶45

SMT PILLAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 230

¶46

SMT SAKKAMMA W/O THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 80

¶47

SRI VIJAYKUMARA, S/O P RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,MEMBERSHIP NO 76. (PETITIONER 1 TO 27 ARE R/AT DEVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, REDDYHALLI POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. (SENIOR CITIZENS BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NOT CLAIMED) THE PETITIONERS NOS.4,6,7 12, 13, 15, 17, 20 AND 23).

¶48

…PETITIONERS

¶49

(BY SRI PRAKASH SHETTY S, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶52

DEVANAYAKANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DEVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶53

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶54

REDDYHALLI POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE (REG. UNDER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959). [

¶55

STATE CO-OPERATION ELECTION AUTHORITY REP. BY ELECTION COMMISSIONER, 3^RD FLOOR, TTMCA BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶56

RETURNING OFFICER OF DEVANAYAKANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., AND CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.

¶57

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER OF BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RUARL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶58

SRI SHIVANNA, S/O LATE APPAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DEVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, REDDYHALLI POST - CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶59

(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.02.2024)

¶60

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5 SRI T L KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI K SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR RECORDS PURSUANT TO CALENDAR OF EVENTS ANNEXURE A DATED 07/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE R2. ii) DIRECTING THE R2 TO R4 TO PREPARE VOTERS LIST OF THE R2 SOCIETY FOR THE YEARS 2024-25 TO 2029-30 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LIST OF MEMBERS WITHOUT INSISTING

¶62

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶63

SECTION 20(2)(a-iv) AND (a-v) OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT AND ETC.

¶64

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

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Heard.

¶67

The petition is filed for issuance of a writ of

¶68

mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to prepare the voters list of the 2^nd respondent-society without insisting the requirement of Sections 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1959’ for short). One more prayer is sought to direct respondents No.2 to 4 to permit the petitioners to vote in the election to the board of the 2^nd respondent-society held on 27.01.2024. The third prayer is to declare Sections 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act , 1959 as unconstitutional.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits

¶70

that the third prayer is not maintainable as this Court has

¶71

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶72

already upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, 1959.

¶73

This Court vide interim order dated 20.01.2024

¶74

granted permission to the petitioners to vote in the election held on 27.01.2024.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the procedure contemplated under Rule 13D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960(Hereinafter referred to as the "Rules,1960" for short) are not followed, no opportunity is given to the petitioners to establish their claim. It is also his contention that on account of the COVID-19 related restrictions, the petitioners could not attend minimum two general body meetings out of the last five general body meetings and it is also his contention that there were restrictions imposed by the Government to conduct such meetings prohibiting congregation in large numbers. Thus, Section 20(2)(a-iv) of the Act, 1959 cannot be pressed into service. He would further submit that Section 20(2)(a-v) of the Act, 1959

¶76

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶78

cannot be pressed into service for the same reason because of the COVID-19 related restrictions, the petitioners could not supply milk as prescribed under the bye-law.

¶79

Referring to the interim order granted by this Court where relaxation is given insofar as minimum number of attendance to the Annual General Body Meetings is concerned, he would submit that applying the same principle, relaxation should also be given to the minimum service to be availed as prescribed under Section 20(2)(a-v) of the Act, 1959. He would also bring to the notice of this Court the Judgment rendered by this Court in

¶80

Sri. B Ganganna and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.29014/2023

¶81

wherein this Court has held that in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice, the writ Court can step into any election matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶82

Learned counsel for respondent No.6, who is one

¶83

of the contestants in the election has submitted statement

¶84

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶85

of objections along with the documents to substantiate the contention that the petitioners have not availed minimum services. He would also point out to the list of ineligible voters where it is stated that the petitioners have not availed minimum services.

¶86

Learned counsel for the respondent would also place reliance on the same judgment of this Court in Sri. B Ganganna and others supra wherein this Court has held that mere non-compliance of procedures contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules, 1960 do not make ineligible voter automatically eligible to vote in the election and eligibility is to be decided based on the materials to show that member has fulfilled the requirements under Section 20(2)(a-iv) and Section 20(2)(a-v) of the Act, 1959.

¶87

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

¶88

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶89

Admittedly, when the petition was filed, the calendar of events was published. The petitioners were permitted to cast vote in the election but results were withheld in terms of the interim order. The contention that Section 20(2)(a-iv) of the Act,1959 cannot be pressed into service to hold that the petitioners were ineligible as they did not attend two meetings on account of COVID-19 related restrictions can certainly be accepted in the light of the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Government in which the State prevented the public from convening gatherings and it is also an admitted fact that Co-operative Societies Meetings were postponed pursuant to the Standard Operating Procedures and it is also relevant to note that in one of the case, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State has made a statement that Section 20(2)(a-iv) of the Act,1959 cannot be insisted to decide the eligibility of the voters. However, the said relaxation is not given in respect of minimum services to be availed by the members of the Society. Admittedly, the petitioners were required to supply 500

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶92

ltrs of milk for minimum 180 days in two co-operative years out of the last 5 years before the election. Materials are not placed before this Court to substantiate the contention that the petitioners have availed minimum services as prescribed under the bye-law by supplying 500 liters of milk for minimum 180 days as contemplated under the bye-law.

¶93

There is serious objection raised by one of the contesting respondents. This being the position, this Court has to hold that disputed question whether the petitioners did avail minimum services as contemplated under the bye-law cannot be looked into in this proceeding.

¶94

Hence, the following:

¶95

ORDER

¶96

(i) The writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:7564 WP No. 1970 of 2024

¶99

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise an election dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

¶100

(iii) If such a dispute is raised, without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶101

(iv) The votes cast by the petitioners shall not be counted while declaring the results. However, such votes shall be maintained in a sealed ballot box and can be made use of in the manner known to law in the election dispute, if it is

¶102

raised.

¶103

Sd/JUDGE

¶104

BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri. Chikkaramanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chikkaramanna v. 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

Reserve Bank of India Vs Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd.

Reserve Bank of India Vs Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd.

Mallakka. S.D., Vs M/S Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited

The Malleswaram Co. Operative Bank Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayana Swamy Alias Nadupanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Muninarayana Vs the State of Karnataka