Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3758 (KAR)

SRI PAMPAPATI S/O NARAYANAPPA ARALIKATTI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WA/100081/2025 · 2025-02-13

B M Shyam Prasad, Ramachandra D Huddar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100081 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PAMPAPATI S/O. NARAYANAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOTIHAL,TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583278 2. NARAYANAPPA S/O. VEERUPAKSHAPPA KOLLI AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583278. 3. SHAKRAPPA S/O. RAMANNA VADDARA. AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOTIHAL,TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583278. 4. HANAMANTAPPA S/O. BASAPPA GANAKI, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.2, SHUKAMUNI MATHA, NEAR NEKARA ONI, DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583278. 5. NAGARAJ S/O. SHANKRAPPA MALAGI, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO. 2, DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583278. 6. NAGARAJ S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KALAGI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MARUTI NAGAR, WARD NO.3 DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583278. 7. SRINIVAS S/O. VITHTHAPPA KANTLI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O WARD NO.3, DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583278 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND AND SRI. A. B. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, 6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 3RD FLOOR, SHATI NAGAR, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, BENGALURU-560027 3. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, KOPAL, DIST: KOPPAL 583231 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER KAIMAGGA NEKAARA SAHAKARI UTPADAKA MATTU MAARAATA SANGHA NI, DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583278 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 5. KAIMAGGA NEKAARA SAHAKAR UTPADAKA MATTU MAARAATA SANGHA NI, DOTIHAL TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583278 R/BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 05/02/2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 100787/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellants are the petitioners in WP No. 100787/2025, and they have called in question in the writ Court’s interim order dated 05.02.2025. The writ Court, while considering the petitioner’s request for interim order “to contest election and cast vote in the elections scheduled to be held on 16.02.2025 to the Committee of the Management of the fifth respondent” has rejected the request by reason which reads as under: “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no dispute as regards the names of the petitioners having been deleted from the list of eligible voters. The aspect of whether the deletion is made properly or not would have to be considered by this Court after hearing all the parties. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no right could be conferred on the petitioners to contest the elections since if so permitted, the same would result in a situation which cannot be reversed, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 thereby pre judging the matter before hearing the parties, in that view of the matter, the interim prayer sought for is rejected.” Sri.H.M.Dharigond, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the aforesaid order is only because the appellants were insisting on the right to contest elections along with the right vote, but this Court may consider granting relief to the appellants in the light of the fact that the appellants will confine their request to cast vote in the upcoming elections subject to the terms as is stipulated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100602/2024 while considering whether a member who is excluded from the eligible voters list must be permitted to vote subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. The order of the Coordinate Bench in such appeal reads as under: “Appellants' have filed an application as per I.A.No.3/2024 seeking direction to the Returning Officer to permit them to cast their vote in the election to be held on 08.12.2024. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 Pending consideration of this Writ Appeal on merits, Returning Officer is hereby directed to permit the appellants to cast their vote. The Returning Officer shall arrange a separate ballot box to enable the appellants to cast their vote, and the said ballot box shall be sealed and kept separately. The Returning Officer is free to declare the election results without considering the votes of the appellants. The consideration of the votes cast by the appellants is subject to further orders in this appeal.” This request is considered calling upon Sri.Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate to take notice for the first and the third respondents while dispensing with notice to the other respondents. This Court does not find a irreversible consequence if the appellants are permitted to cast votes on the terms as stipulated in the WA No.100602/2024. In the light of the afore, the appeal stands disposed of leaving open all the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2899-DB WA No. 100081 of 2025 questions to be decided in the writ petition, but directing the forth respondent [the Returning Officer] to permit the appellants to cast vote arranging a separate Ballot Box for the appellants and to keep such Ballot Box sealed separately. It is also clarified that the Returning Officer will be free to declare the results without considering the votes of the appellants. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/Ct-VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1