Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15470 (KAR)

H VINAY ACHAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/2590/2025 · 2025-01-30

K S Hemalekha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4570 WP No. 2590 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. H. VINAY ACHAR S/O. GURURAJ ACHAR, R/AT ACHARYA COLONY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HOSABETTU, KULAI SURATKAL, MANGALORE - 575 019 MEMBER. NO. 4479. 2. AKBAR ALI S/O HASANABBA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NEAR MUKKA MUKKA POST AND VILLAGE, MANGALORE - 574 146, MEMBER NO. 5812. 3. SATHISH HEGDE S/O BABU HEGDE, AGED 60 YEARS, MITTHODI KUTTHETHOOR, BAJJAVU, MANGALORE - 575 030, MEMBER NO. 2618. 4. RAVINDRA S/O VASU, AGED 54 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4570 WP No. 2590 of 2025 NEAR GRAMA SANGHA, HOSABETTU, MANGALURU - 574 227, MEMBER. NO. 3435. 5. POOVAPPA @ SANJEEVA DEVADIGA S/O BABU DEVADIGA, AGED 66 YEARS, NEAR GRAMA SANGHA, HOSABETTU, MANGALURU - 574 227, MEMBER NO. 4263. 6. MALINI K., W/O CHANDRASHEKARA, AGED 55 YEARS, VIDYANAGARA KULAI, SURATKAL, MANGALORE - 575 019, MEMBER NO. 6255 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, 3A FLOOR, SHANTHI NAGAR, I.M.C. A BLOCK, SHANTHI NAGAR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4570 WP No. 2590 of 2025 BANGALORE - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, JANATHA BAZAR, 1ST FLOOR, GANAPATHI HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALURU D.K. - 575 001. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, APPINTED FOR SURATHKAL VYAVASAAYA SEVA SAHAKAARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, IDYA SURATHKAL, D.K. - 575 014. 5. SURATHKAL VYAVASAAYA SEVA SAHAKAARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA IDYA SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. - 575 014 REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LIST OF REJECTED NOMINATION DATED. 26.01.2025 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4570 WP No. 2590 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is called in question the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner vide order dated 26.01.2025, the grievance of the petitioner is that rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is violation of Rules 14-A(1) and 14-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (‘the Rules’ for short). 2. The Apex court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others1 (Ponnuswami), observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of and whenever a remedy has been provided by an Act or Statute to challenge the outcome of the election or illegality committed during the course of the election, then extraordinary remedy of Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised. 1 (1952) 1 SCC 94 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4570 WP No. 2590 of 2025 3. In the present petition, the election process has been set in motion and it is settled proposition of law that once the election process has been ongoing, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, liberty is reserved to raise a dispute before the appropriate authority under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, if so advised, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70 CT:SNN