Sri Ramakrishna Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEMBERSHIP LIST/SHAREHOLDERS LIST ISSUED BY R2 AS PER ANNX-A AND ALSO QUASH THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS DATED 31.12.2025 PUBLISHED BY R3 AS PER ANNX-B. DIRECT THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT/ REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.01.2026 AS PER ANNX-H.

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2880 WP No. 1051 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

The petitioners filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶42

i) Quash the membership list/shareholders list issued by Respondent No. 2 as per ANNEXURE - A insofar as petitioners are concerned and also Quash the calendar of events dated 31.12.2025 published by respondent No. 3 as per ANNEXURE - B.

¶43

ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to consider the complaint /representation filed by the petitioner dated 12.01.2026 as per ANNEXURE-H as prayed for in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶45

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition

¶46

are as follows:

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:2880 WP No. 1051 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

2.1. Respondent No.3 issued the calendar of events on 31.12.2025, notifying the date of filing of nominations for elections to the Board of Directors as 15.01.2026. It is contented that, the petitioners submitted a representation/complaint on 12.01.2026 to respondent No.1 contending that, the membership/shareholders list has been prepared in contravention of the bye-laws of the society, and have further requested respondent No.1 to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to proceed with the election. The petitioners, aggrieved by the action of the respondents in preparing the membership list/shareholders’ list and calendar of events, filed this writ petition.

¶51

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶52

petitioners and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the membership list/shareholders’ list prepared by respondent No.2 is in violation of provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and further, in violation of bye-law No.27(1E) of the Society. Respondent No.2 cannot

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2880 WP No. 1051 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

hold an election based on the impugned membership list/shareholders’ list. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶57

Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned membership list/shareholders’ list and also the calendar of events. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶58

Perused the records and considered the

¶59

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶60

The undisputed facts are, elections to the Board of Directors of respondent No.2 was scheduled to be held on 22.01.2026. The petitioners, aggrieved by the membership list/shareholders’ list prepared by respondent No.2, filed this writ petition.

¶61

This Court, in the case of Bhimappa S/o Sidagoud Magadum Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalakoe and Others¹ , placing reliance on the on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inderjit

¶62

1 WP No.148379/2020, disposed of on 03.11.2020

¶63

6 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:2880 WP No. 1051 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Barua and Others Vs. Election Commission of India² ,

¶67

held in paragraph Nos.20 to 22 as follows:

¶68

“20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inderjit Barua and others Vs. Election Commission of India reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1911, with reference to paragraph No.3, which reads as under:

¶69

"We are of the view that once the final electoral rolls are published and elections are held on the basis of such electoral rolls, it is not open to anyone to challenge the election from any constituency or constituencies on the ground that the electoral rolls were defective. That is not a ground available for challenging an election under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The finality of the electoral rolls cannot be assailed in a proceeding challenging the validity of an election held on the basis of such electoral rolls vide Kabul Singh V. Kundan Singh. Article 329(b) in our opinion clearly bars any writ petition challenging the impugned elections on the ground that the electoral rolls of 1979 on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid."

¶70

21. A reading of the aforesaid judgment would clearly indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held therein that, there is a clear bar to any writ petition challenge defect in electoral roll.

¶71

22. This Court placing a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Court the case of J.Robert Vs. Ram Jethmalani reported in ILR 1990 (KAR) 1907 held that even if there is an error in preparation of electoral roll the same cannot be

¶72

2 (1985) 1 SCC 21

¶73

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2880 WP No. 1051 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

quested before the High Court. As far as perpetration of electoral roll, additional or deletion of names etc., are all the matters pertaining to the dispute relating to election of member etc., that any dispute relating to electoral roll cannot be entrained in the writ petition. Hence, this Court holds that dispute relating to electoral roll cannot be entertained.”

¶76

9. Considering the proposition of law laid down by

¶77

the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners have no right to question the final electoral roll before the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed , reserving a liberty to the petitioners to avail efficacious remedy, if so desired.

¶78

In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IA(s),

¶79

if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶80

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

¶82

PA CT:KHV

Sri Ramakrishna v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramakrishna v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

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. Fayaz Pasha Vs M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Shreya D Poojari Vs State of Karnataka

G v K Education Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sindhu Vs Mysore and Chamarajanagar District and Co. Operative Central Bank Ltd.

Sri K Natraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri. Gowtham Gowda