Hanumanthe Gowda K Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 7333 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANUMANTHEGOWDA K S/O. KAPANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.733, BEHIND AUDEN INSTITUTION, HOSAKERAHALLI 7^TH BLOCK, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU- 560085.

¶9

B. RAVI S/O. BORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.J-51, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018.

¶10

&PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS M.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYANAN M.R., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signedby MANJANNAE MANJANNAE Location: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKADHARWADBENCHDate:2026.01.2015:21:16 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, 3^RD FLOOR, SHANTI NAGAR, T.T. M.C. 'A' BLOCK, SHANTI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (I AND D) /ELECTION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE

¶17

REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NO. 1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052.

¶22

THE RETURNING OFFICER /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES (DAIRY), OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052.

¶23

THE HANUMANTHANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.7/29, K.P.PURNACHANDRA TEJASHWI ROAD, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU-560019, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶24

BOMMEGOWDA R. S/O. RAMAIAH MAJOR, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070.

¶25

HARISH V. S/O. VEERABHARAIAH MAJOR, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.

¶26

&RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DARESWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. P.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT I.E. THE RETURNING OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES UNDER RULE 14(Y) OF THE K.C.S RULE 1960 DATED 02-02-25 I.E. ANNEXURE-A, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE AND DIRECT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER ONLY THE VOTES OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND TO IGNORE THE VOTES OF THE DISQUALIFIED MEMBERS AND DECLARE THE ELECTION RESULTS IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have called in question the order dated 02.02.2025 passed by the Returning Officer Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Rule 14(Y) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (<KCS Rules= for short), whereby the results of the election to the Board of Directors of the 5^th respondent, Cooperative Society or Cooperative Bank was declared.

¶35

Brief Facts :

¶36

The 5^th respondent bank notified the calendar of events on 27.12.2024 for conducting elections to its Board of Directors for the term 2025-2029. Out of 3347 members, 170 members were declared as disqualified on the ground of non-fulfilment of statutory requirements.

¶37

Certain disqualified members challenged their

¶38

exclusion by filing W.P.No.1098/2025, wherein this Court by interim order dated 17.01.2025 permitted them to cast

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

their votes subject to final outcome of the writ petition and

¶43

directed that such votes be kept in separate ballot box.

¶44

Subsequently, by order dated 22.01.2025, W.P.No.1098/2025 was disposed of, holding that the disputes relating to electoral roll, eligibility of voters and impact on the elections are required to be adjudicated under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (<KCS Act= for short) and liberty was reserved to agitate the same before the competent authority. Thereafter the Returning Officer passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2025, counted all votes including those

¶45

cast by the disqualified members and declared the election results. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that upon disposal of W.P.No.1098/2025, the interim arrangement stood dissolved and therefore the votes cast by the disqualified members in a separate ballot box ought

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

to have been excluded and that the Returning Officer misinterpreted the order dated 22.01.2025 as a mandate to include such votes. It is submitted that if only eligible voters' votes are considered, both petitioners would have secured highest votes than the declared successful candidates in the general and reserved categories respectively and that the impugned order is therefore illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

¶51

Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit the order passed in W.P.No.1098/2025 was with a direction for the aggrieved party to approach the authority under Section 70(2) of KCS Act and in light of the declaring of result by the Returning Officer, the petitioner being aggrieved party has to approach the authority under the KCS Act, and the writ petition before this court is not maintainable.

¶52

The controversy raised in the present writ petition essentially relates to the validity of the votes cast

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

by the disqualified members and the impact of such votes

¶57

on the election results. This Court while disposing of the

¶58

W.P.No.1098/2025 held as under:

¶59

=ORDER

¶60

i. The Returning Officer shall count the votes cast in the elections held on 19.01.2025 to the Board of Directors of respondent No.5Society and shall announce the results.

¶61

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners or any aggrieved party to raise objections to the validity of the electoral by filing a Election Petition under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act, 1959.

¶62

iii. If any dispute is raised under the provisions of KCS Act, 1959 the authority under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 shall examine all questions including the questions relating to the validity of the eligible and ineligible voters list and impact of the election to the Board of respondent No.5-Society.

¶63

iv. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

v. This Court has not expressed merits and demerits on eligibility of ineligibility of the voters list

¶68

vi. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.=

¶69

This Court categorically held that an exhaustive statutory mechanism is provided under Section 70 of the KCS Act, to adjudicate disputes concerning electoral roll, eligibility or ineligibility of voters and their effect on election. Liberty was expressly reserved to the aggrieved parties to avail the said remedy and this Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶70

The interpretation now sought to be placed by the petitioners on the order passed in W.P.No.1098/2025, namely that the votes kept in separate ballot box necessarily stood excluded, would amount to reinterpreting or supplementing the final order passed in W.P.No.1098/2025, which is impermissible in a collateral proceedings.

¶71

8 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:2029 WP No. 7333 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Whether the votes of the disqualified members

¶75

ought to have been excluded, whether their inclusion had materially affected the result and whether the Returning Officer acted contrary to law are all mixed questions of law

¶76

and facts which falls fairly within the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act,.

¶77

In view of the efficacious statutory remedy available, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction.

¶78

All the contentions are to be kept open to be adjudicated before the competent forum. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) The petition is dismissed .

¶81

(ii) The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by raising the election dispute under Section 70 (2) of the KCS Act, in accordance with law.

¶82