Sri. Neelakantaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. NEELAKANTAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO. 124/G, R/AT KACHAPURA VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527.

¶6

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶7

SRI. G. VENKATESH S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, (WRONGLY TYPED AS 33 YEARS) MEMBERSHIP NO.116/G R/AT SADARAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M. S. BUILDINGS, BANGALURU-560 001.

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶13

THE RETURNING OFFICER CUM CO OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VENGALAPURA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL, CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, VENGALAPURA VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527.

¶14

VENGALAPURA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, VENGALAPURA VILLAGE,

¶15

HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.

¶16

SRI. K. ANANTH S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO. 107/H R/AT VENGALAPURA VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MR. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. 05.01.2025 AT ANNEXUREA AND B ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS RESPECTIVELY AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have called in question the endorsement dated 05.01.2025 issued by respondent No.2, rejecting the nomination filed by the petitioners for contesting the election for one post of Director reserved under "non-Borrower" category.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioners, along with the application/nomination, the receipt for having paid Rs.2000/- was annexed and respondent No.2-Returning Officer without conducting any enquiry as provided under Rule 14B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (amendment) Rules 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "KCS Rules, 2013" for short), proceeded to pass a cryptic manner rejecting the application of the petitioners.

¶26

The caveator for respondent No.4 filed statement of objection inter alia contending that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as on the rejection of

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶28

nomination paper followed by declaration by declaring that respondent No.4 has been duly elected and declaration in favour of respondent has not been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. Further that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as "KCS Act, 1959 for short).

¶29

It is further stated in the statement of objection that the rejection of the nomination is on the ground that the petitioners have not enclosed receipts in proof of making remittance of requisite fees, while contesting election as notified by the Returning Officer under notification dated 26.12.2024.

¶30

Heard Sri Sadashivaiah K .G., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M. R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. H. N. Basavaraju, caveator for respondent No.4 and learned Sri Yogesh D. Naik., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating

¶33

the writ petition grounds submits that the petitioners have paid sum of Rs.2,000/- each and along with the application receipt of payment of Rs.2,000/- was annexed and the said fact has been totally overlooked by the Returning Officer.

¶34

Per contra, Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for caveator respondent No.4 submits that rejection of nomination whether proper or not cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the election process has commenced and the writ Court cannot entertain as there is an alternative efficacious remedy provided under Section 70 of KCS Act, 1959, which is an detailed mechanism for resolving the dispute and without exhausting the statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot directly approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Having heard both sides learned counsel for the

¶36

parties, the point that falls for consideration is that:

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶38

"Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable in the present facts and circumstances of this case?"

¶39

The petitioners' claim as could be seen from the

¶40

record is on the ground of rejection of the nomination, which clearly falls under the purview of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. It is well established principles of law that when an alternative efficacious remedy is available, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not maintainable and it is maintainable unless exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction or undue delay has been made out by the petitioners. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioners is the rejection of the nomination. As stated supra the remedy for the petitioners which is a detailed mechanism under the KCS Act, 1959 is provided.

¶41

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamuthu Vs. State Election Commission for Cooperation, Karnataka State Co-operative Housing

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶44

Federation and Others¹ has held at paragraph Nos.21

¶45

and 27 as under.

¶46

"21. As already noted, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be utilized as a substitute for ordinary remedies when an efficacious, ordinary remedy exists, unless there is any exceptional reason for dealing with the matter under the writ jurisdiction. At the same time, we may hasten to add that the doctrine of alternative remedy is available only where that remedy fully covers the challenge to the election as in the instant case. It is noted, the doctrine of alternative remedy is only a rule of discretion and not a rule of law, but the High Court can always issue a writ, despite the availability of an alternative remedy, when there is a patent want of jurisdiction or, when there has been denial of natural justice before the Court of summary jurisdiction or, whether when the vires of an Act is impugned or, when there is an allegation that the fundamental right has been infringed. Further, if the alternative remedy is not adequate, then the High Court would not refuse to entertain a writ petition. In the aforesaid contingencies, even if the alternative remedy is available, a writ petition would be entertained.

¶47

1 ILR 2018 KAR 3671.

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶49

27. Therefore in the matter of an election dispute although the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution is expressed to only elections held to the Parliament or the State Legislature, nevertheless, the principle emanating from that Article has been applied in respect of all other elections including that of local bodies or authorities constituted by a statute or to bodies formed under a statute. Therefore, we find that the aforesaid decisions would clearly imply that even in the case of improper rejection of a nomination of a candidate, the aggrieved party cannot rush to the High Court to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but would have to avail of the remedy by way of election petition which is a statutory remedy. Hence, the Hon'ble Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. However, the controversy does not end in the instant case."

¶50

In light of the settled proposition enumerated

¶51

above, this Court is of the considered view that even in the case of improper rejection of a nomination, the aggrieved party would have to avail the remedy by way of Election Petition, which is a statutory remedy and the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶52

9 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:1060 WP No. 174 of 2025

¶54

of India is not maintainable, accordingly, point framed for consideration is answered against the petitioners and this

¶55

Court pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of

¶58

merits .

¶59

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Authority under Section 70 of KCS Act, 1959.

¶60

iii. All contentions are kept open.

¶61

iv. This Court has not expressed the merits or demerits of the case and any observation made, is only restricted for adjudication of this writ petition.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

¶64

AT

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SNN

Sri. Neelakantaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Neelakantaiah 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. T. P. Subramanya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G. K. Anusuya Kalasegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesh C Vs Karnataka State Law University

Aruna Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr K M Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka