Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18621 (KAR)

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/5654/2025 · 2025-03-20

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11865 WP No. 5654 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5654 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O. REVENABASAVYYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SHARE NO. 124, MEMBER OF S. GOLLAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR, T.T.M.C., A BLOCK, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, CHIEF ELECTION AUTHORITY. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ELECTION OFFICER, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11865 WP No. 5654 of 2025 DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 110. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER S. GOLLAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., THAVEREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 130. 5. S. GOLLAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., THAVEREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 130, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESENTLY BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, (REGISTERED UNDER CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THE ACT OF RESPONDENTS CATEGORIZING THE PETITIONER AS IN- ELIGIBLE VOTER TO 5TH RESPONDENT ELECTIONS 2025-2030 AS PER ANNEXURE-C IS ERRONEOUS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL ISSUED BY R5 AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11865 WP No. 5654 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. This Court by way of various interim orders had permitted the petitioner, who was declared to be ineligible voter to cast his vote in the elections of the Society, subject to the result of the writ petition and that the vote cast by the petitioner shall be kept in separate a ballot box. 2. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.S.Raju vs. State of Karnataka & others1 has after considering the matter in detail come to a categorical conclusion that any irregularity in the conduct of election a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be the proper remedy. Any dispute as regards the eligibility or 1 W.P.No.8502/2022 dated 7.6.2022 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11865 WP No. 5654 of 2025 ineligibility and the deficiencies in finalization of final electoral list, could only be considered in a dispute raised as regard the election under Section 70 (2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 after the announcement of the results by counting even the vote cast by the petitioner. 3. The said judgment not having been challenged and having attained finality, the fact being more or less similar would equally apply to the present matter. 4. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is disposed of. ii) The Returning Officer in the above matter is directed to announce the result within seven days of the receipt of a copy of this order by taking into account the vote cast by the petitioner in the above matter. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11865 WP No. 5654 of 2025 iii) In the event of any proceeding being filed in relation to the results of the election under Section 70 (2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, all the contentions raised herein and any that may be raised are left open for consideration in accordance with the applicable law, this court has not expressed any opinion on those issues. iv) The vote cast by the petitioner, which had been directed to be kept in a separate box shall continue to be retained in a separate box until the disposal of the dispute, if any raised within the time frame prescribed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70 CT: BHK