Disposed¶53

Shankar S/O Ramappa Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2025WP/100557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of nomination under Section 29C(g), Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959; paid employee dismissed/removed/compulsorily retirement vs accepted resignation; Returning Officer endorsement 26/01/2025; Vividoddeshа Prathamik Grameen Krushi Shaker Sangha Niyamit Kagawad election; votes in sealed cover; results announced; writ under Articles 226 and 227; certiorari and mandamus; reliance on W.P. No. 107724/2024; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench; M. Nagaprasanna, J.; petition disposed 12.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions: the Returning Officer to count the votes cast in favour of the petitioner as well and announce the election results; post-result disputes left to remedies available in law. Pending applications do not survive for consideration. ¶53

Shankar S/O Ramappa Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Returning Officer could reject the petitioner's nomination invoking Section 29C(g) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, where the petitioner had resigned from service and his resignation had been accepted, and he had neither been dismissed, removed nor compulsorily retired after any enquiry. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The power to invoke Section 29C(g) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 exists only under three circumstances — when a paid employee of a cooperative society is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired — each of which would require a prior enquiry; none of these happened in this case, so the Returning Officer could not turn down the petitioner's nomination on that ground. (As held in this Court's corrected order dated 28.01.2025, reproduced in the judgment.)

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had resigned from service and his resignation had been accepted; such a case does not fall within the stipulations of Section 29C(g), and accordingly the nomination could not have been rejected by the Returning Officer under that provision.

¶39

Key takeaways

Since the elections had already been concluded and the petitioner had voted, the Returning Officer is directed to count the votes cast in favour of the petitioner as well and announce the results.ratio¶52
Any dispute ensuing after announcement of the results is expressly left open: the petitioners or the aggrieved may avail of such remedy as is available in law.obiter¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Election to a primary co-operative society (Belagavi district) — Returning Officer rejected the petitioner's nomination by endorsement dated 26/01/2025 invoking Section 29C(g) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. This Court, by corrected order dated 28.01.2025 (recalling its order dated 27.01.2025), held that Section 29C(g) can be invoked only in three circumstances — dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a paid employee — each requiring a prior enquiry; the petitioner had merely resigned and his resignation stood accepted, so the case did not fall within Section 29C(g) and the nomination could not have been rejected. Following the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 107724/2024, the petitioner was permitted to contest, his votes were kept in a separate sealed cover and results were barred absent leave of the Court. By the final order dated 12.02.2025, the election having concluded and the petitioner having voted, the Returning Officer was directed to count the votes cast in favour of the petitioner and announce the results; ensuing disputes were left to remedies available in law. Petition disposed; pending applications did not survive.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2806 WP No. 100557 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100557 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA NAYAK, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAGAWAD, TALUK: KAGAWAD, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN: 591204.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION MS BUILDING,

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

BENGALURU- 580001.

¶16

THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3^RD FLOOR, A BLOCK SHANTI NAGAR, TMC BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶17

THE ELECTION OFFICER, THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELAGAVI AND CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION, BELOW TALUKA LEVEL ARE OF OPERATION OF ALL THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2806 WP No. 100557 of 2025

¶20

TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN: 591102.

¶21

THE RETURNING OFFICER, VIVIDODDESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SHAKER SANGH NIYAMIT KAGAWAD, TALUK: KAGAWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI, AND CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ATHANI, PIN- 591204,

¶22

VIVIDODDESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SHAKER SANGHA NIYAMIT KAGAWAD, TALUK: KAGAWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN- 587301, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. G. V. BHARAMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SRI SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AN IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT WHEREIN REJECTED THE NOMINATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION OF THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST IN THE ELECTION, AND TO CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS SCHEDULE TO BE HELD ON 01/02/2025 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2806 WP No. 100557 of 2025

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶31

This Court on 27.01.2025 had passed the

¶32

following order, which was corrected by way of an order dated 28.01.2025. The order dated 28.01.2025 reads as follows:

¶33

The order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Court is recalled and today i.e. on 28.01.2025 passed the following order:

¶34

The petitioner sought to contest the election, to the respondent-society, he is at the doors of this Court, on the score that his nomination has been rejected invoking Section 29C (g) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that, the petitioner has not incurred any ineligibility under Section 29C (g) of the Act for his nomination to be turned down.

¶36

The returned candidate has sought to implead himself into these proceedings on the score that today at 3:00 PM, after filing of the present petition, the respondent has been declared a returned candidate. It is the submission that it is as per the calendar of events.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2806 WP No. 100557 of 2025

¶38

The contestants to the Post of Director in the said Society were two in number. Therefore, one is to out by disqualification and the other gets elected unanimously, obviously. The nomination of the petitioner could not have been turned down by the Returning Officer for the simple reason that the power to invoke Section 29C (g) of the Act is only under three circumstances, when a paid employee of a Cooperative Society is either dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, all of which would require an enquiry, preceding the action of either dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. None of those things have happened to the case at hand.

¶39

The petitioner has resigned from service. His resignation has been accepted. It is understandable as to how the Returning Officer invoking Section 29C (g) of the Act could reject the nomination of the petitioner as it was not coming within the stipulations in Section 29C (g) of the Act.

¶40

In identical circumstances, the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.107724/2024 has passed the following order:

¶41

i. “The petitioner and the 5^th respondent shall be permitted to contest in the elections to the 4^th respondent – Society.

¶42

ii. The votes cast in favour of the 5^th respondent shall be kept in a separate sealed cover and shall be made available to this Court on the next date of hearing.

¶43

iii. The results of the elections to the 4^th respondent – Society shall not be declared without the leave of the Court.”

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2806 WP No. 100557 of 2025

¶46

I deem it appropriate to grant the same benefit that is granted in those petitioners, in those petitions, to the petitioner in the subject petition.

¶47

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

¶48

Learned counsel Sri.G.V.Bharmagoudar is directed to accept notice for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶49

Issue emergent notice for respondent No.5

¶50

List this matter on 10.02.2025.”

¶51

2. Pursuant to said order, elections are said to

¶52

have been concluded and the petitioner also has voted in the elections. The Returning Officer shall now count the votes that are cast in favour of the petitioner as well and announce the results.

¶53

Therefore, the Returning Officer shall now announce the results and any dispute ensuing thereafter, it is open to the petitioners or the aggrieved to avail of such remedy as is available in law. In the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2806 WP No. 100557 of 2025

¶56

In view of the disposal, the pending applications do

¶57

not survive for consideration.

¶58

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶59

RHR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Shankar S/O Ramappa Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar S/O Ramappa Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh S/O Sadashiv Ittappanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.G.Malleshappa S/O G. Thimmappa Vs the State Bank of India

Dr.S.S.Naregal Vs the Registrar

Gurayya S/O Basyya Kambi Vs Karevva W/O Lakkappa Pasandavar

Sri. Shviayogi S. Kammar S/O Sathyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Udaya Shankar.K.R. Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.