Dismissed¶¶99

Sri Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025WA/1933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (Bakhru CJ, Poonacha J), 03.12.2025, WA 1933/2025 (CS-EL/M): writ appeal by 25 members of a milk producers' co-operative society against Single Judge order dated 07.11.2025 refusing to entertain challenge to ineligible-voters list for society Managing Committee elections; alternate remedy under S.70, Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 upheld; disputed questions of fact (meeting attendance, notices, COVID-19) left to that forum; no relief contrary to statute; appeal dismissed, pending application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

There is no cavil that if aggrieved on account of being considered ineligible to participate in the election, it is open for the appellants to avail their remedy by raising a dispute under Section 70 of the 1959 Act, as noted by the learned Single Judge. ¶¶85

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶99

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge was right in declining to entertain the writ petition challenging the final list of ineligible voters on the ground that the appellants had a remedy under Section 70 of the 1959 Act. +2 more

¶¶84

Court's answer

¶¶85

Ratio / Principle

Evaluation of the appellants' contentions (non-attendance at meetings, alleged want of proper notices, COVID-19 mitigating circumstances) would require adjudication of questions of fact, and the Court viewed it as not apposite to do so in these proceedings.

¶¶96

Key takeaways

If it is correct that the appellants have incurred their ineligibility as per the statute, they cannot be permitted to participate in the elections; plainly, no relief can be directed contrary to the statute, and the representativeness objection does not warrant interference.ratio¶¶98
The Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.ratio¶¶99
If the appellants avail the alternative remedy, they are at liberty to request the concerned authorities for an expeditious disposal of their disputes.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 1933 of 2025, CS-EL/M) against the order dated 07.11.2025 of a learned Single Judge declining to entertain W.P.No.30485/2025, wherein 25 members of Chikkathekahalli Milk Producers Co-op Society Ltd. (registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959) had impugned the final list of ineligible voters published by the Returning Officer for the Managing Committee elections and sought mandamus for inclusion in the eligible voters list. The Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, per; C.M. Poonacha, J) held that an aggrieved voter may raise a dispute under Section 70 of the 1959 Act; that the entitlement-to-vote questions involved disputed questions of fact not apposite for adjudication in writ proceedings; and that no relief can be directed contrary to the statute notwithstanding the submission that the 13-member governing body would effectively rest on votes of only twenty-six members. Appeal dismissed; pending application disposed of; appellants at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of their disputes under the alternative remedy.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1933 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI NARAYANASWAMY

¶11

S/O. SRI CHIKKACHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.46

¶12

SMT. GAYITHRI W/O N. MURALI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.03

¶13

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.08

¶16

SRI T.N. SRINIVASA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.18

¶17

SRI GANGAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.31

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI DEVARAJU T.N. S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.65

¶22

SRI DYAVAPPA S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.68

¶23

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO. 104

¶24

SRI SIDDACHANNAKRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.104

¶25

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O MOPIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.148

¶26

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.153

¶27

SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.163

¶28

SRI R. MANJUNATHA S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO. 166

¶33

SRI NARASHIMAPPA S/O DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.190

¶34

SMT. NIRMALAMMA @ NIRMALA D/O CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.197

¶35

SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.207

¶36

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKACHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.216

¶37

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.217

¶38

SMT. CHANAKRISHNAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.218

¶39

SRI R. MANJUNATHA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.222

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.179

¶43

SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O DEVARAJA T.N AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.132

¶44

SRI ASHOK V. S/O. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.07

¶45

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO. 133

¶46

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.156

¶47

ALL APPELLANTS ARE THE MEMBERS OF CHIKKATHEKAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., CHIKKATHEKAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105 BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI SIDDLAGATTA TALUK

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT, 1959)

¶52

…APPELLANTS

¶53

(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

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

¶56

THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3^RD FLOOR, T.T.M.C. 'A' BLOCK, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027 REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶57

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

¶58

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

¶59

THE RETURNING OFFICER CHIKKATHEKAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

CO-OP SOCIETY LTD CHIKKATHEKAHALLI VILLAGE BASHETTIHALLI POST AND HOBLI SIDDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105

¶64

CHIKKATHEKAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP, SOCIETY LTD CHIKKATHEKAHALLI VILLAGE BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI SIDDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105

¶65

…RESPONDENTS

¶66

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, 3 & 4, SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6)

¶67

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.30485 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) AND ETC.

¶68

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶73

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶74

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶75

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30485/2025 (CS-EL/M).

¶76

The appellants had filed the said writ petition, inter alia , impugning the final list of ineligible voters, which was prepared and published by respondent No.5 [the Returning Officer ] in respect to the elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.6 [ the Society ]. The appellants also prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Returning Officer to include the names of the appellants in the list of eligible voters.

¶77

The Society is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [the 1959 Act ].

¶78

On 01.10.2025, the Returning Officer had issued a calendar

¶79

of events in respect to the elections of the managing committee of

¶80

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the Society, which was scheduled to be held on 19.10.2025. The names of the appellants were shown in the list of ineligible voters. In view of the above, the appellants had filed the writ petition, which was disposed of by the impugned order.

¶83

The averments made in the writ petition indicate that some of the appellants were included in the ineligible list as they had not attended requisite number of general body meetings held preceding the elections and thus, in terms of the relevant statute they were ineligible to vote in the said elections. Further, some of the appellants had not conducted minimum transactions or availed the minimum threshold of services, which was required for them to be eligible to participate in the elections.

¶84

The learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had a remedy under Section 70 of the 1959 Act.

¶85

There is no cavil that if aggrieved on account of being considered as ineligible to participate in the election, it is open for the appellants to avail their remedy by raising a dispute under Section 70 of the 1959 Act as noted by the learned Single Judge.

¶86

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Thus, the learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the petition.

¶89

Pursuant to the interim order passed in the petition, the appellants were permitted to cast their votes which was kept separately. Since the petition was not entertained, the appellants could derive no benefit from the interim orders passed by the court.

¶90

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the declaration of the results be withheld till the appellants avail the alternate remedy to which they are relegated.

¶91

It is apparent that the question; whether the appellants were entitled to vote, involve certain disputed questions of fact. Whilst, it is not disputed that the appellants have not attended the threshold number of meetings prior to the elections, the appellants claim that no proper notices were issued in respect of the said meetings. Additionally, there were mitigating circumstances resulting from the outbreak of COVID-19 that prevented the appellants from participating in the meetings.

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Evaluation of the said contentions would require adjudication

¶96

of questions of fact and we are of the view that it would not be apposite to do so in these proceedings.

¶97

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that since a large number of voters have been held to be ineligible, the 13 members governing body would be constituted, effectively, on the basis of votes cast only by twenty-six members. He submits that the elected body would thus not be representative of the members.

¶98

We are not persuaded to accept that any interference of this Court is warranted for the aforesaid reason. If it is correct that the appellants have incurred their ineligibility as per the statute, the appellants cannot be permitted to participate in the elections. Plainly, no relief can be directed contrary to the statute.

¶99

We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶100

11 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:50392-DB WA No. 1933 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

Needless to state that if the appellants avail the alternative remedy, they are also at liberty to request the concerned authorities for an expeditious disposal of their disputes.

¶104

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶105

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶106

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶107

KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Sri Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Somashekar T Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Jayakumar Vs Girish D P

Mr. Nithyanandan J Vs Mr. Mahesh Rao

The State of Karnataka Vs M/S Madhu Construction

M/S Ideb Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Sri Saragar Thayanna Vs State of Karnataka