Nirmala Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 6^TH FLOOR, 3^RD GATE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶61

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶62

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, BMTC BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶63

H. NAGARAJ RETURNING OFFICER CUM CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK NELAMANGALA 562123

¶64

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶65

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER / MANAGER PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK NELAMANGALA 562123 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:7297 WP No. 2882 of 2025

¶68

(REGISTERED UNDER THE

¶69

KARNATAKA CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT 1959)

¶70

…RESPONDENTS

¶71

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3; SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶72

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶73

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN RULE 13 D (2-A) OF THE KCS RULES, 1960 AS THE MANDATE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED TO CONDUCT THE ENSUING ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY BY INCLUDING THE NAMES OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND BY PERMITTING ALL OF THEM TO VOTE IN THE ELECTION SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 02.02.2025 AND ETC.

¶74

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶75

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

¶76

8 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:7297 WP No. 2882 of 2025

¶78

ORAL ORDER

¶79

The petitioners are seeking for the following prayer:-

¶80

"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to follow the provisions contained in Rule 13D(2-A) of the KCS Rules, 1960, as the mandate of the relevant provision is not being followed to conduct the ensuing election to the Board of the 4^th respondent - Society by including the names of all the members of the petitioners in the list of eligible voters and by permitting al of them to vote in the election scheduled to be held on 02.02.2025."

¶81

This Court by way of an interim arrangement on

¶82

01.02.2025 permitted the petitioners to cast their votes in the ensuing election scheduled on 02.02.2025 subject to final outcome of this petition.

¶83

Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel

¶84

for the petitioners, Sri Siddharth Babu Rao, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 and Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶85

9 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:7297 WP No. 2882 of 2025

¶87

4. Respondent No.5 though served has chosen to remain absent.

¶88

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the election has been held as scheduled on 02.02.2025 and the petitioners have cast their votes.

¶89

Reiterating various contentions raised in the writ petition, it is mainly urged that no individual notice is issued to the petitioners while the names of the petitioners are excluded in the final voters list and the respondents have acted against mandate requirement of Rule 13 (D) (2-A) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1960 (‘the Rules’ for short). It is urged that the petitioners should be treated as eligible voters and their votes to be counted as valid votes.

¶90

No material is forthcoming to indicate the compliance of aforementioned rules. It is brought to the notice of this Court that under identical circumstances, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.S. Raju

¶91

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7297 WP No. 2882 of 2025

¶92

and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others¹ (H.S.

¶93

Raju) has permitted the votes to be counted and election results to be announced, keeping open all contentions to be adjudicated in the appropriate forum under Section 70 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short). Whether the petitioners would incur any disqualification to vote or not is a question of fact to be decided by the appropriate authority under Section 70 (2) (c) of the Act and hence, the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

i. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶96

ii. The Returning Officer to count the votes, including the votes cast by petitioners and announce the results of the election, which was scheduled on 02.02.2025.

¶97

iii. Aggrieved party is entitled to raise a dispute under Section 70 (2) (c) of the Act, if raised a dispute under the said provision, questioning the eligibility of the petitioners

¶98

1 2022 (4) AKR 775

¶99

11 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:7297 WP No. 2882 of 2025

¶101

to vote in the election to the Board of the respondent – society, the said dispute shall be decided without being influenced by the interim order granted by this Court and it is made clear that granting of an interim order in favour of the petitioner would not give any finding on the eligibility of the petitioners to vote in the election of the Board of respondent – society.

¶102

iv. The eligibility of the petitioners to vote in the election is kept open to be decided in a dispute, if any, raised in this regard.

¶103

v. If any such dispute relating to the eligibility of the petitioners to vote in the election to the Board of the respondent-society is raised, the effect of holding the petitioners ineligible to vote and excluding such votes, on the final outcome of the election results shall also be taken into account before passing the final orders.

¶104

vi. The vote cast by the petitioners shall be kept in a separate sealed box after counting.

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:7297 WP No. 2882 of 2025

¶106

12 -

¶107

vii. This Court has not expressed any merits or demerits of the ineligibility of the petitioners.

¶108

Sd/- JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶109

BNV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30 CT:SNN

Nirmala Rangaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Rangaswamy 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. Ajjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivananda Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagesha D Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna C Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivasagara M B Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka