Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; Returning Officer directed to announce the election result within seven days taking the petitioner's vote into account; the petitioner's vote to remain in a separate ballot box until disposal of any Section 70(2) election dispute; all contentions left open for such proceeding.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the proper remedy against the petitioner's categorization as an ineligible voter for the 5th Respondent Society's 2025-2030 elections, or whether disputes as to eligibility/ineligibility and deficiencies in the final electoral list can only be considered in an election dispute under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 after announcement of the results.

Court's answer

Since the coordinate-bench judgment in H.S. Raju vs. State of Karnataka & others (W.P.No.8502/2022 dated 7.6.2022) has not been challenged and has attained finality, and the facts of the present case are more or less similar, its conclusion equally applies here: an Article 226 petition is not the proper remedy for irregularity in the conduct of the election, and disputes as to eligibility/ineligibility and deficiencies in the final electoral list can only be considered in a dispute under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 after announcement of the results, counting even the vote cast by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The Returning Officer is directed to announce the result of the Society's election within seven days of receipt of a copy of the order, taking into account the vote cast by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

In the event of any proceeding being filed in relation to the election results under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, all contentions raised in the writ petition and any that may be raised are left open for consideration in accordance with applicable law; this Court has not expressed any opinion on those issues.ratio¶38
The vote cast by the petitioner, kept in a separate ballot box pursuant to the interim orders, shall continue to be retained in a separate box until disposal of any election dispute raised within the prescribed time frame.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of (Suraj Govindaraj J., High Court of Karnataka, 20-03-2025). The petitioner, a member (Share No. 124) of S. Gollahalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., was categorized as an ineligible voter for the Society's 2025-2030 elections (Annexure-C); by interim orders he had been permitted to vote subject to the result of the writ petition, his ballot kept in a separate box. Relying on the coordinate-bench judgment in H.S. Raju vs. State of Karnataka & others (W.P.No.8502/2022 dated 7.6.2022), which stood unchallenged and final, the Court held that the like facts attracted the same conclusion: a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper remedy for irregularity in the conduct of a co-operative society election, and disputes as to eligibility or ineligibility and deficiencies in the final electoral list can only be considered in an election dispute under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 after announcement of the results, counting even the petitioner's vote. The Returning Officer was directed to announce the result within seven days taking the petitioner's vote into account; the separate ballot box is to be retained until disposal of any such dispute; all contentions were left open, the Court expressing no opinion on them.