- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.1523 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: LOKESH B.C. S/O. CHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHARE NO.98/16, R/O. BELUR VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 010. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, 3RD FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE ELECTION OFFICER AND THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU REGION, MYSURU-570 024. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, MANDYA TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, MANDYA-571401, AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, MANDYA-571 401. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 5. MANDYA TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, REGISTERED CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANDYA-571 401, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 6. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1, R-3 AND R-4; SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS LIST OF NON-BORROWERS’ CONSTITUENCY VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS’ LIST OF BORROWERS’ WOMEN RESERVED CONSTITUENCY (CONSTITUENCY NO.4 SOONAGAHALLY) VIDE ANNEXURE-H OF THE R-5 MANDYA TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking for the following prayers: “Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: (a) Issue a Writ, order or direction, in the nature of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quashing the eligible voters' list of non- borrowers' constituency vide Annexure-G and the eligible voters' list of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 borrowers' women reserved constituency (Constituency No.4-Soonagahally) vide Annexure-H of the respondent No.5-Mandya Taluk Primary Co- operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited. the eligible (b) Issue a Writ, order or direction, in the nature of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quashing the election notification dt. 10-01-2025 issued by the Returning Officer-fourth respondent vide Annexure-K to conduct election to the board of the fifth respondent- Mandya Taluk Primary Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited. (c) Issue a Writ, order or direction, in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to conduct the elections to the respondent No.5-Mandya Taluk Primary Co- operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited, after publishing the electoral roll in strict adherence to Rule 13D(2A) of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960. (d) Pass such other order/s as may be appropriate in favour of the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Taking to the annexures annexed to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.3-Election Officer, respondent No.4- Returning Officer and respondent No.6-Co-Operative Development Officer without following the procedures as envisaged under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the KCS Act, 1959’ for short) and Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Rules, 1960 (‘the Rules, 1960’ for short), are conducting the election of respondent No.5-society. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Election Authority failed to carry out its obligation as mandated under Section 39A of the KCS Act, 1959 and Rules 13-C and 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960, which has resulted in publishing a faulty and defective voters list, on which basis the election is scheduled to be held on 25.01.2025. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has challenged the election process before - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 this Court by filing the present writ petition when there is an alternative efficacious remedy provided to the petitioner to approach the authority under the Act. Even from the stage of preparing the eligible and ineligible voters list, the election process is underway and the present petition is not maintainable. 5. The said contention is also supported by learned counsel for other respondents. 6. The election process has been started by publication of the eligible and the ineligible voters list, calendar of events was notified on 10.01.2025 by respondent No.4-Returning Officer. As stated supra, the grievance of the petitioner is that the election authority has not carried on its obligation as envisaged under the Act and Rules and the entire conducting of the election to the Board of respondent No.5-bank is vitiated. 7. Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 reads as under: “70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision.–(1) Notwithstanding - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arises.– (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs, or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co- operative society, or a credit agency. such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no civil or Labour or Revenue Court or Industrial Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely.– (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-president or any office-bearer or Member of board of the society. (d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative society notwithstanding anything contrary - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947); (e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in the assets of the co- operative society by a member, past member, deceased member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its board, past or present whether such loss be admitted or not. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. (4) x x x x x (5) x x x x x” 8. Plain reading of the aforementioned provisions clearly indicates that the role of the Co-Operative Election Authority under the KCS Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1960 in conducting the election to the board of the Co-Operative is all pervasive, its start from the stage of preparing the eligible - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 and ineligible voter list till the announcement of results and the Election Authority plays a predominant role in not only conducting the elections to the Board of the Co-Operative society, but also in finalizing the electoral roll with reference to the right to vote and disqualification to vote. The plain reading of section starts with an expression, “any dispute arising in connection with the election”, making it clear that the authority under Section 70 (2) (c) of the KCS Act, 1959, can decide any dispute in connection with the election process of the members of the board of the Co-Operative society. 9. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. B Ganganna and others Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Co Operation and others1 (B Ganganna) has held at paragraph Nos.22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 40, 41, and 50 as under: “22. On a cursory reading of the above- mentioned provisions, it is evident that the role of the Co-Operative Election Authority under the scheme of the Act, 1959 and the Rules 1960, in 1 ILR 2024 KAR 1901 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 conducting the election to the board of a co- operative society is all-pervasive. Right from the stage of preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list till the announcement of results, the Co- Operative Election Authority has a predominant role to play in not only conducting the elections to the board of a co-operative society but also in finalising the electoral roll with reference to right to vote and disqualification to vote. This aspect is to be kept in mind while answering the questions raised in the petition. 26. Having considered the predominant role of the Co-Operative Election Authority right from the stage of preparing the electoral roll, finalising the same after hearing the objections, publication of calendar of events and conducting the elections, and having considered the nature of the vote of member in a co-operative society, before proceeding to answer the question whether there can be a challenge to the electoral roll in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the publication of the calendar of events on the premise that the said roll is published in violation of Rule 13-D(2-A), the Court has to consider if any, statutory remedy is available to question the violation of provisions of the Act, 1959 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 and the Rules, 1960 in preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list. 28. The plain grammatical meaning of the expression "any dispute arising in connection with the election" itself makes abundantly clear that the Authority under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 can decide any dispute in connection with the election of the members of the board of a co- operative society. In addition, as can be noticed from Section 70(2)(c), unlike the provisions in the enactments like The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and even the Representation of People Act, 1951, which provide for election dispute on specific grounds enumerated in the provision, in Section 70(2)(c), the challenge to the election to the Board of a co-operative society is not restricted to certain specific grounds. Thus, there can be no room for any doubt whatsoever that the Section 70(2)(c) of Act, 1959 is wide enough to cover all questions in connection with Section 20 (a-iv) (a-v) and Rule 13-D (2-A) referred to above. 29. However, a word of caution is needed here. The right to vote and the disqualification to vote in the election to the board of the co-operative society is not just dependent on the procedure to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 be followed under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules. The right to vote or ineligibility to vote depends on the members meeting, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 20(a-iv) and (a-v). Non-compliance with the mandatory procedures prescribed under Rule 13-D(2-A) for preparation of voters’ list ipso facto will not make the ineligible voter, eligible to vote. Eligibility to vote is also required to be demonstrated. It is quite possible that even if Rule 13-D92-A) is not followed, the list may conform to Section 20(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, 1959. Thus, apart from demonstrating that the Rule 130D is not complied, the member has to demonstrate that the is eligible to vote but should also demonstrate that the faulty voters’ list made and impact on the election results. 30. It is also relevant to note that non- compliance of some part of Rule 13-D(2-A), may close the window provided to repay the dues within the time fixed under Rule 13-D(2-A). It will take away the opportunity to be an eligible voter or an opportunity to contest. Losing a chance to contest an election if the nomination paper is rejected on the premise that the candidate's name is not in the electoral roll can also be questioned under Section 70 of the Act, 1959. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 33. Admittedly, Section 70(2)(c) does not specify the grounds on which an election to the board of a co-operative society can be set aside. Assuming that there is a vacuum as to what kind of relief can be granted under Section 70(2)(c), applying the principles contained in Section 100(1)(d-iv) of Act of 1951, and following the ratio in T.S.PATIL vs. THE J.R.C.S. AND OTHERS2 and CHANNE GOWDA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3 and HAYAT BEIG vs. MUNIVENKATE GOWDA AND OTHERS4, the non-compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 can be read as a ground available under Section 70(2)(c) of Act, 1959 to challenge the election to the board of a co-operative society. Thus, the Authority under Section 70 of the Act, 1959 can also look into the violation of the provisions of the Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960, applicable to the election to the board of a co-operative society. If, it is established that the electoral roll is prepared in violation of the mandatory rules and that the result of the election is affected on account of faulty electoral roll, then, the Authority under the Act is competent to pass an appropriate order on the election by assessing the impact of faulty electoral roll on the outcome of the election. This being the 2 ILR 2007 KAR 491 3 1975 (2) Kar.L.J.235 4 (1972) 1 Mys.L.J.121 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 position, this Court is of the view that the judgment rendered in T S PATIL does not come to the aid of the petitioners. On the other hand, the principle laid down in the said judgment will enable the Authority under Section 70 to examine the violation of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 as well. 40. Whether the preparation of the electoral roll is part of an election is the question answered by the Apex Court in SHRI SANT SADGURU JANARDAN SWAMI (MOINGIRI MAHARAJ) SAHAKARI DURGHA UTPADAK SANSTHA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS5. The Apex Court has analyzed the scheme of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules concerning the preparation of the electoral roll and the process of filing objections to the ineligible voter's list. The Apex Court has taken the view that the preparation of the electoral roll is also an intermediate stage in the election. 41. The provisions of the Rules, 1960, in so far as the conduct of elections are complete code in itself. The said judgment is indeed rendered interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Co- Operative Societies Act and Rules. It is also true that the procedures under the said Act and Rules in preparing the electoral roll are different from the 5 (2001) 8 SCC 509 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 one provided in the Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960. However, the fact that both enactments provide an adjudicatory mechanism before finalizing the final electoral roll and also the fact that an independent authority other than the co-operative society is assigned with the role of preparing the electoral rolls and conducting elections, the underlying philosophy in both Rules in so far as conducting elections to the board of a co-operative society is by and large the same. 50. For the reasons recorded, this Court concludes as under: (a) The preparation of electoral roll under Rule, 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co- Operative Rules 1960 is an integral part of the election process in the context of a question whether the writ petition is maintainable when the challenge is laid to the procedure initiated for preparing electoral roll. (b) In a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:2947 WP No. 1523 of 2025 the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the election. (c) The judgments in MOHAMMAD BEARY and H.S. RAJU are not per incurium (d) The writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll on the ground of non compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, may lie in exceptional cases.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In light of the settled proposition of law, the present petition is not maintainable, however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 and the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as no exceptional circumstances made out by the petitioner to interfere with the election process and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43