Allowed

Dayananda Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2024WP/4986/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Members of a co-operative society challenged rejection of their election nominations on grounds of member disqualification. A stay order against the disqualification was operating under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The court held they must be treated as candidates and permitted counting and declaration of results.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners treated as candidates in the fray; votes cast directed to be counted and result declared; liberty to aggrieved members to raise a Section 70 dispute.

Dayananda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7683 WP No. 4986 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4986 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DAYANANDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O PUTTA CHALUVE GOWDA, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.

¶9

RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O RAME GOWDA,

¶10

BOTH ARE MEMBERS OF SUNNA GHATTA MILK

¶11

PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SUNNAGHATTA KASABA HOBLI - 562159, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI JAI PRAKASH REDDY M, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶17

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

¶18

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562159.

¶19

THE RETURNING OFFICER SUNNA GHATTA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SUNNAGHATTA KASABA HOBLI - 562159 CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:7683 WP No. 4986 of 2024

¶22

THE SUNNA GHATTA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SUNNAHGATTA KASABA HOBLI 562159 CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4 SRI T L KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SMT MANJULA C, ADVOCATE, FOR R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 15.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. DIRECT THE R4 TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND D AND PERMIT THEM TO CONTEST THE ELECTION SCHEDULE TO BE HELD ON 21.02.2024 AS PER CALENDAR OF EVENTS DTD 05.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY R4.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The petitioners before this Court an aggrieved by the rejection of their nomination by the returning officer. The petitioners contested election to the board of 5^th respondent Society which was held on 21.02.2024.

¶30

The petitioners claim that they were disqualified as members on a complaint lodged by the special officer

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7683 WP No. 4986 of 2024

¶32

of the Society. It is his submission that the order of disqualification was stayed by the Registrar under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') in a dispute under Section 70. He further submits that the benefit of stay order is in favour of the petitioners.

¶33

It is also submitted that despite the stay order brought to the notice of the returning officer, the returning officer has rejected the nomination on the premise that the petitioners are disqualified as members. Learned counsel for the respondent Society would submit that the petitioners have attended two annual general body meetings and have availed minimum services and there is no disqualification to contest and vote in the election.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate does not dispute the fact that there is a stay order operating in favour of the petitioners. This Court is of the view that

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:7683 WP No. 4986 of 2024

¶37

benefit of stay order granted should ensure to the benefit of the petitioners.

¶38

Under these circumstances, the following order is passed:-

¶39

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The petitioners be treated as candidates in the fray.

¶41

(iii) The votes cast in the election can be counted and result shall be declared.

¶42

(iv) It is further made clear that if any member of the Society is aggrieved by the election result including the participation of the petitioners, the said person shall be at liberty to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Act of 1959.

¶43

(v) If any dispute is raised, the same shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made in the interim

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:7683 WP No. 4986 of 2024

¶45

¶46

order or this order treating the petitioners

¶47

as the candidates in the fray.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Dayananda Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayananda Swamy 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

Sri. Chikkaramanna Vs State of Karnataka

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

Narayana Swamy Alias Nadupanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H D Kiran Kumar Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Sri C Aswathanarayanagowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nirmala. R Vs the Principal Secretary