- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 202986 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. RAJESHEKAR S/O NAGAMURTHI, AGE:61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHANDORI, THANNA KUSHNOOR, BIDAR-585436. 2. DAYANAND S/O VISHWAMBER SHASTRI, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIKENDRAPUR ROAD, NEAR MANIK PRABHU TEMPLE, ANDURA, BIDAR-585402. 3. BASAVARAJ S/O GUNVANTH RAO PATIL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURU NANAK COLONY, BIDAR-585401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, ® Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OPP. OLD BUS STAND, BIDAR-585101. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIDAR-585101. 4. THE NARANJA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD, IMMAPURA, BIDAR-585402, DIST. BIDAR, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEHARU GUNJ, KALABURAGI-585104. 6. RETURNING OFFICER, ELECTION OF NARANJA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD, IMMAPURA, BIDAR, BIDAR-585402. 7. UMAKANT S/O GURUPADAPA NAGAMARPALLI, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.8-7-101, LIG-21, KHB COLONY, BIDAR. 8. AMBRESH S/O GANGAPPA, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGAMARPALLI VILLAGE, TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR. 9. SHOBHAVATI W/O SHANKRAPPA PATIL, AGE:62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALLUR (J), TQ. AURAD(B), DIST. BIDAR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 10. MALLAMMA W/O KASHINATH PATIL, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHAMBOL, TQ AND DIST. BIDAR. 11. SANJAY KUMAR S/O NAGASHETTY SIDDAPURE, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 12. RAJKUMAR S/O MANIKAPPA KARANJI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.LIG 58/CMC NO. 8-7-154, KHB COLONY, BIDAR-58401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALHAR RAO, AAG AND SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA, FOR R1, R2, R3 & R5; SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ELECTION NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED ON 10.09.2025 BY 6TH RESPONDENT FIXING THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS ON 12.09.2025 AND VOTING DATED 27.09.2025 THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. B) ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR INCLUDING OF NAMES OF PETITIONERS OTHER THOUSANDS SHAREHOLDERS IN THE VOTER LIST OR NOTIFY THEM FOR NOT INCLUSION AND PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING (AUDI ALTERM PARTEM) BEFORE PUBLISHING OF SUBSEQUENT FINAL VOTER LIST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) This petition puts in issue the validity or otherwise of the process of election being carried out by respondent No.6 as per the Election Notification dated 10.09.2025 produced at per Annexure-C in respect of respondent No.4 – Cooperative Society. Petitioners claiming to be the members of respondent No.4 – Cooperative Society have sought for following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned election notification published on 10.09.2025 by 6th respondent fixing the calendar of events on 12.09.2025 and voting dated 27.09.2025; b) Issue of writ of mandamus for directing the respondent No.6 for including of names of petitioners other thousands shareholders in the voter list or notify them for not inclusion and provide the opportunity for hearing (audi alterm partem) before publishing of subsequent final voter list; and c) and any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 2. Learned counsel Sri Gourish S. Khashampur appearing for petitioners taking this Court through the records submits: (a) That there are more than 25,000 shareholders of respondent No.4 – Cooperative Society, who are residing at different/remote parts of the districts. (b) That elections to the Board of respondent No.4 – Cooperative Society is sought to be conducted as per Annexure-C in furtherance to which list of eligible voters was published as per Annexure-B, which consists only 4,438 eligible voters as against 25,000 voters. (c) He strenuously taking this Court through the provisions of Rule 13-D of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (‘the KCS Rules, 1960’ for short) providing for preparation of electoral rolls with particular emphasis to Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960, insists that the final eligible voters list shall be prepared and published before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. That list of voters at Annexure-B has been published on 07.09.2025, while the calendar of events as per - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 Annexure-C has been published on 10.09.2025. Thus, he submits there is gross violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D KCS Rules, 1960. In that, respondent No.6 has proposed to conduct the election just within a period of three days from the date of publication of the list of voters without even providing minimum period of fifteen clear days. (d) That the respondent - authorities have not complied with the provisions mandated for the purpose of preparation of the voters list, which vitiates the entire process. Considering the number and size of the membership of Respondent No.4 – Cooperative Society, this Court is required to exercise its writ jurisdiction to enable all the members to participate in the democratic process of respondent No.4– Cooperative Society. (e) That the Returning Officer declared the respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 as elected unopposed on 21.09.2025 instant which is much within the stipulated period of fifteen clear days from the date of issuance of final voters list. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 (f) That though an alternate remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the KCS Act, 1959’ for short) is provided, the aforesaid violation of provisions of law is the extraordinary circumstance warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for petitioners relies upon the following authorities: i) Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another - Civil Appeal No.5707/2023 dated 06.09.2023; ii) Mysore and Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.A.No.1333/2023 and connected matters dated 02.01.2024; iii) Aashish Kishor Gadkari vs. The State Election Commission and another in W.P.(L.).No33675/2024 dated 06.11.2024; iv) J.T.Koppalu Consumer Co-operative Society Limited and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.11721/2025 dated 28.04.2025; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 v) Sri A.Ragavendra and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.3301/2024 connected with W.P.No.33117/2024 dated 09.01.2025; vi) Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.107564/2024 dated 12.12.2024; and vii) Sri Chetan vs. Smt.P.V.Kalpana and others in W.A.No.1175/2024 dated 02.05.2025. 4. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.7 to 12 submits: (a) That consistent position of law has been that once the calendar of events are issued, the Court shall ordinarily not interfere in the process of election and the election should be allowed to be continued uninterrupted. That should there be any dispute or any party being aggrieved by the election process, necessary reliefs contemplated under the statute be availed by way of filing election petition. (b) That in the instant case the elections are being conducted under the provisions of KCS Act, 1959, the challenge raised by the petitioners is in respect of preparation of electoral rolls which is very much an essential part of the process of election and such challenge is amenable under the provisions of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 (c) That the contention urged by the petitioners with regard to respondent No.6 violating mandate of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 is misconceived. In that, period of fifteen clear days contemplated is referable to the date of election and not the date on which the calendar of event is issued. (d) That the list of eligible voters as per Annexure-B has been published on 07.09.2025. Date of election is fixed on 27.09.2025. The period between the date of issuance of the list of eligible voters and the date of election is far beyond the period of fifteen clear days. Therefore, there has been strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law. (e) Adverting to the declaration of result of respondent Nos.7 to 10 as unopposed, he submits that provisions of Rule 14-G(2) of the KCS Rules, 1960 provides for declaration of candidate unopposed. That the polling is contemplated only if there are more than one candidate for the required seat. (f) That the interim order granted by this Court has interrupted the process of election. Therefore, the law with regard to such a situation is also well settled wherein if a process of election is interrupted by way - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 of an interim order of a Court, and if the petition is finally dismissed, the process of election has to be continued from the stage where it was stopped. (g) Thus, the learned Senior counsel submits that the election process in the instant case having been interrupted in the light of the interim order dated 26.09.2025 granted by this Court, be directed to be continued from the stage where it was interrupted. 5. In support of this submission, the counsel relies upon the following authorities: a) Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar and others – (2000) 8 SCC 216; b) Supreme Court Bar Association and others vs. B.D.Kaushik – (2011) 13 SCC 774; c) Mohammad Beary and others vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.29271/2023 and connected matters dated 28.12.2023; d) Sri B.Ganganna and others vs. State of Karnataka, in W.P.No.29014/2023 dated 24.01.2024; e) H.B.Veerabhadra Goud vs. Returning Officer and Tahasildar - ILR 1990 KAR 2850; and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 f) H.V.Prasanna vs. Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer, Hassan City Municipal Council and others - (1988) 3 Kant L.J 510. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State furnishing copies of the records pertaining to the process of preparation of electoral rolls at Annexure-B to the writ petition submits: (a) That the statutory notices were issued to all the members of respondent No.4 – Co-operative Society as required under Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 calling upon them to clear the dues and to file objections if any. He also brings to the notice of this Court the paper publication issued in the daily newspaper, Vijayavani, Prajavani, Vijaya Karnataka on 23.04.2025 and Kannadaprabha on 24.04.2025 instant. Thus he submits that there has been complete compliance of the law by the Election Officer before preparation of the voters list. (b) That since the issue raised pertains to the disputed questions of fact, the writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is required to be dismissed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 by relegating the petitioners to avail the remedy if they so advised under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. (c) He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph vs. V. Viswanath and others in Civil Appeal No.1629/2016 dated 22.02.2016 and referring to para 14 of the said judgment submits that the Court shall not interfere with the election process and seeks for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. Before adverting to the rival submissions necessary to refer to the settled position of law in the matter of entertaining petitions raising issues pertaining to election process. 9. Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar and others (supra) referring to its various earlier judgments at paragraphs 31 and 32 has summed up as under: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 “31. The founding fathers of the Constitution have consciously employed use of the words no election shall be called in question in the body of Section 329 (b) and these words provide the determinative test for attracting applicability of Article 329 (b). If the petition presented to the Court calls in question an election the bar of Article 329 (b) is attracted. Else it is not. 32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove:- 1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. 2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to calling in question an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. 3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. 5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association and others vs. B.K.Kaushik (supra) at paragraph 60 has held as under: “60. Further, the appellants had rightly pointed out to the learned Judge that election process had already started and, therefore, injunction, as - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 claimed, should not be granted. Since 1952 this Court has authoritatively laid down that once election process has started the courts should not ordinarily interfere with the said process by way of granting injunction……” 11. Thus, the present petition has to be dealt with keeping in mind the aforesaid settled principles of law. 12. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in justification of maintainability of the present writ petition is purported gross violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 providing for publication of final list of eligible voters with fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. That in the instant case voters’ list is published on 07.09.2025 as per Annexure-B while election notification has been published on 10.09.2025 as per Annexure-C. The calendar of events have commenced on and from 12.09.2025 and the date for polling is fixed to be held on 27.09.2025. Thus, the period between the publication of list of voters and publication of calendar of events is just about three days, thereby violating the rules providing period of fifteen clear - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 days for the elections from the date of publication of list of voters. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically submits the period of fifteen clear days contemplated under Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 shall be construed between the date of publication of list of voters and the date of coming into effect of calendar of events and not the date fixed for polling. He submits only such construction to the language used in Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 would justify the requirement of providing sufficient period to the eligible voters or to the persons who have been left out of the list to redress their grievance, failing which the same would result in depriving the constitutional and fundamental rights of the petitioners. 14. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the date of election shall be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 referred to the actual date of polling and not the date on which the calendar of events is issued. 15. Necessary at this juncture to refer to notification of election produced at Annexure-C providing for calendar of events which reads as under: “£ÀªÀÄÆ£É-XII {¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14 (3) C£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr} ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ £ÉÆnøÀÄ £ÁgÀAeÁ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ¸ÀPÀÌgÀÉ PÁSÁð£É ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, f.J£ï.£ÀUÀgÀ, EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÇgÀ-©ÃzÀgÀ gÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ, ªÀÄÄA¢£À LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÀÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §ÃzÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèQ£À d£ÀªÁqÀ ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÇgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.09.2025 (±À¤ªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ 9:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4:00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÀÉUÀÉ £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ: 1. ‘J’ ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Ä⠧ɼÀÉUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃQgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ: 11 ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ: ¸ÀzÀj 11 ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À ¥ÀÊQ i) ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ :01 ¸ÁÜ£À ii) ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ : 01 ¸ÁÜ£À iii) ªÀÄ»¼Á ªÀUÀðzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ : 02 ¸ÁÜ£À iV) »AzÀĽzÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð "J" ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ : 01 ¸ÁÜ£À V) »AzÀĽzÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð "©" ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ : 01 ¸ÁÜ£À Vi) ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå : 05 ¸ÁÜ£À 2. ‘©’ ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Ä⠧ɼÀÉUÁgÀgÀ®èzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃQgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ :01 ¸ÁÜ£À 3. ‘¹’ ªÀUÀðzÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃQgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ :01 ¸ÁÜ£À ¸ÀzÀj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉAiÀÄ WÀl£ÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAwgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 PÀæ. ¸ÀA. ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÁAiÀÄð¸ÀÆa ¢£ÁAPÀ, ªÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ (J) ¸Àé¢üÃð¸À®Ä EaÒ¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.09.2025, (±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ 11:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÀÉUÀÉ (©) ¸Àà¢üÃð¸À®Ä EaÒ¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¸À®Ä PÀqÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ (¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-J) 19.09.2025, (±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ 11:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÀÉUÀÉ £ÁgÀAeÁ ¸ÀºÀPÁj PÁSÁð£É ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, f.J£ï.£ÀUÀgÀ, EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÆgÀ, vÁ:f: ©ÃzÀgÀ gÀ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ DqÀ½vÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è (¹) jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É (¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-©) 20.09.2025, (±À¤ªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ 11:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ (r) jl¤ðAUÀ C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ ¹AzsÀÄvÀé ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ £ÁªÀĤzÉÃð²vÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀltÉ (¤AiÀĪÀÄ-14 ©(4)) £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ (E) GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁgÀjAzÀ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÀqÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ (¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-¹) 21.09.2025, (gÀ«ªÁgÀ) ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÁV. (J¥sï) ¤ªÁðZÀ£Á¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ ¹AzsÀÄvÀé ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀltÉ (¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-r) 21.09.2025, (gÀ«ªÁgÀ) ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ (f) CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ«zÀÝ°è jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÀÉ aºÉßUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉ (¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-E) 21.09.2025, (gÀ«ªÁgÀ) ¸ÀAeÉ 4:00 UÀAmÉUÉ Naranja sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. G.N. Nagar, Imampur Tq Bidar, @ Administrative Building (ºÉZï) ¹AzÀÄvÀé ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ aºÉßAiÉÆA¢UÀÉ ¥ÀæPÀltÉ (¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-E ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 14-J¥sï) 23.09.2025, (ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ) ¨É½UÉÎ 11:00 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÁgÀAeÁ ¸ÀºÀPÁj PÁSÁð£É ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, f.J£ï.£ÀUÀgÀ, EªÀiÁªÀÄ¥ÀÆgÀ, vÁ:f: - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 (L) ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 27.09.2025, (±À¤ªÁgÀ) §É½UÉÎ 9:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4:00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÀÉUÀÉ (eÉ) ªÀÄvÀ JtÂPÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 27.09.2025, (±À¤ªÁgÀ) ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀÄÄVzÀ vÀPÀët (PÉ) jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ ¥sÀ°vÁA±À WÉÆõÀtÉ 27.09.2025, (±À¤ªÁgÀ) ªÀÄvÀ JtÂPÉ ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀÀ ©ÃzÀg.À Naranja Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. G.N. Nagar, Imampur Tq & Dist :Bidar. 1. ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ MlÄÖ 13 (ºÀ¢ªÀÄÆgÀÄ) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2. ‘J’ ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Ä⠧ɼÀÉUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ 11 ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ZÀÄ£Á¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. a. EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÀÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ, (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ PÀÌÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ, (02) ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄ»¼Á ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß »AzÀĽzÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð ‘J’ UÀÉ ºÁUÀÆ (01) ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß »AzÀĽzÀÀ ¥Àæ-ªÀUÀð ‘©’ UÀÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÉ «ÄøÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. H½zÀ (05) ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå DVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. b. J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀs¸ÀågÀ£ÀÄß MAzÉà ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ CªÀgÀÄ J¯Áè ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ZÀÄ£Á¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. c. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ºÁUÀÆ »AzÀÄUÀ½zÀ ªÀUÀð ‘J’ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ‘©’ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ EwÛÃa£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV eÁj ªÀiÁrzÀ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÀÉ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ®UÀwÛ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 3. ‘©’ ªÀUÀðzÀ PÀ§Ä⠧ɼÀÉUÁgÀgÀ®èzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjAzÀ MAzÀÄ (01) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÀÌÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉ £ÀqɸÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ªÀUÀðzÀ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ£Éßà M§â ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ§ÉPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 4. ‘¹’ ªÀUÀðzÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀUÀðzÀ°èAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ (01) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÀÌÉ ¸Àà¢ð¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀUÀðzÀ°èAiÀĪÀgÀ£Éßà M§â ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ§ÉPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 5. £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ C¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀħºÀÄzÁVzÉ. 6. £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°èPÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.09.2025gÀ §É½UÉÎ 11:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÀÉUÀÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.09.2025gÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÁV £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß jl¤ðAUï C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÀÉ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è ¸À°è¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. 7. M§â C¨sÀåyð MAzÀÄ ªÀUÀðQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀUÀðPÀÌÉ C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è, ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ºÀPÀÄ̼Àî ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ C¨sÀåyðQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À C¨sÀåyðUÀÉ ¸ÀÆZÀPÀ£ÁV ¤zÉÃð±À£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. 8. ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14-J(3) gÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉ vÀªÀÄä £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÀÉ gÀÆ.2,000/-UÀ¼ÀÄ oÉêÀt £ÀUÀzÀÄ CxÀªÁ r.r oÉêÀt¹zÀ gÀ²ÃzÀ£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ®UÀwÛ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ»¼Á GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj oÉêÀtÂAiÀÄ ±Éà 50% gÀµÀÄÖ oÉêÀt CAzÀgÀÉ (gÀÆ. 1,000/-) oÉêÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. (¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ºÁUÀÆ »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðPÀÌÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ°è EwÛa£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¤ÃrzÀ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ®UÀwÛ¸ÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.) 9. ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁgÀgÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀtÉUÀÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1959, ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1960 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ G¥À «¢üUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè CºÀðvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉʸÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥sÁ°¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¸ÀܼÀ: ©ÃzÀgÀ ¸À»/- ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.09.2025 ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ¢üPÁj” 16. Perusal of aforesaid Annexure-C would indicate that the same has been issued in Form No.XII in terms of Rule 14(3) of the KCS Rules, 1960. Rule 14 of the KCS Rules, 1960 reads as under: - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 “14. Notification of General Election. (1) The [Election Officer] shall with the approval of the CEC notify in Form XI the intended election referred to in Section 39-AA. (2) The [Election Officer] shall in such notification specify.- (i) the last date for making nominations which shall be the [seven] clear day before the date of election; (ii) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, which shall be the day immediately following the last date for making nominations; (iii) the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures, which shall be the fifth clear day before the date of election; (iv) the date on which the poll shall, if necessary, be taken and the hours [between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.] during which the poll shall be taken; and (v) the date before which the election shall be completed.” (3)(a) On the issue of the notification under sub-rule (1), the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form XII by displaying it on the notice board in his office and in the office of the co-operative society and at such other places as he deems necessary, inviting nominations for such election. (b) In the said notice, the returning officer shall specify among other things the last date for receipt of nominations, the place at which - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 nominations are to be delivered, date of scrutiny of nominations, the last date for withdrawal of candidature, the date on which a poll shall, if necessary be taken and the hours [between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.] of poll and the date before which elections shall be completed which shall conform to the dates notified in that behalf by the Election Officer under sub-rule (2).” 17. Also relevant to refer to sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 which reads as under: “(3) The Election Officer shall take steps for publication of voters list in the following manner, namely.- (a) for publication of draft eligible electoral list, a list of defaulter, a list of members whose repayment falls due, before the election date clear fifty days; (b) for calling objections, if any, calling upon the defaulter members to repay the amounts due to the co-operative societies on or before thirty clear days prior to the date of election; (c) the scrutiny and verification of the voters list after payment by defaulters etc., clear twenty days before the date of election; (d) for publication of final eligible voters list before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election; - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 Provided that the draft list of eligible members and delegates with right to vote, the list of defaulters and the list of other members and delegates who are not eligible to vote as also the final list of electoral rolls and the election calendar shall be announced on the notice board of the concerned co-operative society and its branches, if any, the local office of the department of co-operation, website if any of the co-operative society.” 18. In the light of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter and the applicable provisions of law, contention regarding violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the following reasons: i) Issuance of calendar of events, as noted above is as contemplated under Rule 14 of the KCS Rules, 1960. ii) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the KCS Rules, mandates the Election Officer to issue notification - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 in the prescribed format, providing the list of events or dates. iii) In Clauses (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and (v) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the KCS Rules, 1960 there is specific and repeated mentioning of words ‘date of election’, which would only indicate that the ‘date of election’ is different from the ‘date of issuance of calendar of events’. Clause (iv) provides for specifying the ‘date and time for conducting the polls’. iv) Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 has to be read in conjunction with the mandate provided under Clause (2) of Rule 14 of the KCS Rules, 1960, lest the same would lead to anomalous situation, in that, a party disputing the ‘date of election’ may refer to any of the dates provided in the calendar of events as ‘date of election’, which is neither the purport nor the intent of the legislation. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 v) There is no ambiguity in Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 which states that the eligible voters list to be published before fifteen clear days prior to the ‘date of election’. If the date of election is intended to be otherwise, than the ‘date of actual polling’, it would have been from the ‘date of Notification of the General Election’ contemplated under Section 14 of the KCS Rules, 1960. 19. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners to consider fifteen clear days period contemplated under Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 to be from the ‘date of calendar of events’ and not from the ‘date of actual polling’ cannot be accepted. 20. Having held as above, the other contentions urged is with regard to manner and method of preparation of voters list by the respondent No.6. As already noted there has been consistent judicial discipline and - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 precedents that once the calendar of events are issued and if the dispute raised involves questions of fact, the Court shall not interfere. Exception, however, is indeed provided only if the issue raised seeks to subserve the progress of election and facilitates completion of election. 21. In the instant case, questions that are raised with regard to non-consideration of eligibility of about 21,000 voters/members are as to whether these members were served with notice as contemplated under Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960? whether the service was sufficient? and whether they had an opportunity to present their case or not? These are the questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as consideration of the same would neither subserve the progress of election nor facilitate its completion. It is for this reason Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 has been provided for the parties aggrieved to canvass their grievance before the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 appropriate authority which would adjudicate upon the questions of fact. 22. This Court in the case of Mohammad Beary and others vs. State of Karnataka (supra), referring to the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others - (2001) 8 SCC 509 has held that the disputes with regard to preparation of voters’ list which forms integral part of election process, the remedy available is under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act, 1959. 23. The reliance placed on by learned counsel for the petitioners on the authorities with regard to maintainability of the writ petition are of no avail as they significantly delve on the questions of law and not on the questions of fact: - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 (a) In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh (supra), the question involved was refusal/non-allocation of the poll symbol by the Election Commissioner enabling the party therein to contest the election. (b) In the case of Mysore and Chamrajnagar Co- operative Bank Ltd., (supra), the issue involved was with regard to withdrawal of calendar of events. It is under such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court intervened in the matter and directed the election to be continued and concluded in expeditious manner. (c) In the case of Aashish Kishor Gadkari vs. Election Commission of India in W.P.(L) No.33675/2024 dated 06.11.2024, the issue involved was the Returning Officer therein did not allow the petitioners to rectify the defects listed in the list of objections raised upon the scrutiny thereof. It had nothing to do with the process of preparation of voters list. (d) The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon in the case of J.T.Pappalu Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd., (supra) is concerned, the question involved was pure one of law, in that the time period prescribed under Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules 1960, had not expired though the procedure prescribed under Rule 13-D had been completed. (e) As regards the reliance placed on the judgment of the other Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri A.Ragavendra and others (supra), the order passed in W.P.No.107564/2024 dated 12.12.2024 in the case of Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra), this Court do not see any contrary view inasmuch as the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 said judgments also concur with the view that election disputes shall be relegated to be resolved under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. (f) As regard to the other judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Sri Chetan vs. Smt.P.V.Kalpana (supra), while dealing with the maintainability, the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held, where the controversy involved is of question of law and not disputed questions of fact, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition. Thus, the line of judicial precedents and the discipline is clear, in that petition as that of the one at hand involving disputed questions of fact cannot be maintained. 24. As regards the declaration of election results of respondent Nos.7 to 10 is concerned, Rule 14-G of the KCS Rules, 1960 provides as under: “14-G. Procedure in contested and uncontested election. - (1) If the number of contesting candidates in any area or constituency is more than the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, a poll shall be taken. (2) If the number of such candidates in any constituency is equal to the number of seats to be filled from that area or constituency, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 elected to fill these seats in Form XIX as may be appropriate. (3) If the number of such candidates is less than the number of seats to be filled from that constituency or place, the returning officer shall declare all such candidates to be duly elected after withdrawal is over in Form XIX as may be appropriate and the [Election Officer] shall, with the approval of the Co-operative Election [Authority], call upon the society to elect a person or persons to fill the remaining seat or seats. After such election to fill the casual vacancy is over, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates duly elected to fill those casual vacancy seats in Form XX.” 25. According to the private respondents, in paragraph 5 of their affidavit accompanying the application filed by them seeking themselves to be impleaded, it is deposed as under: “5. The proposed respondent No.7 to 12 are belongs to following class of members in terms of bye-law. (a) Proposed Respondent-7- 'C' Class member (Primary Cooperative Societies Constituency) (Open category) (b) Proposed Respondent-8 - 'B' Class member (member other than sugarcane growers constituency) (Open Category) - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 (c) Proposed Respondent-9 - 'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Woman Category). (d) Proposed Respondent-10 - 'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Woman Category). All the above class of members declared elected as a board of director of 4th respondent cooperative sugar factory, since nobody files nomination against them and declared unopposed (this fact was suppressed by the petitioners). Copies of the declaration made by the Returning Officer under Rule 14-G(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules 1960 (for short Rules 1960) are produced as Annexure-Proposed R7(a), (b) and (c). (e) Proposed Respondent-11-'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Open Category) (f) Proposed Respondent-12-'A' Class member (sugarcane growers constituency) (Category- IIIB). The above proposed respondents are contested for the office of board of directors of 4th respondent cooperative sugar factory. Copies of the acknowledgements are produced as Annexure Proposed R7(d) and (e).” 26. Since, there was no nomination filed against respondent Nos.7 to 10, they were declared unopposed - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 and declaration of their results was published by the Returning Officer in terms of Rule 14-G (2) of the KCS Rules, 1960 which cannot be found fault with. 27. This brings to the third aspect of the matter as to the consequences of the interim order passed by this Court. The said issue is also no more res integra. In the case of H.B.Veerabhadra Goud vs. Returning Officer (supra) following questions fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court: 1) When any election is stayed by an Interim Order granted by a Court, in any case, and the case is finally dismissed, whether the election should proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted or a fresh Calendar of Events should be issued ? 2) Whether the election to the offices of the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat at Alur, which is the subject matter of this Writ petition, should be held confining to the candidates who had filed nomination pursuant to the notice of election issued on 10.04.1987 before the issue of Stay Order by this Court or the election should be held by giving further time to the Members of the Panchayat to file nominations seeking election to those offices ? - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 and while answering the aforesaid questions, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraphs 4 and 8 has held as under : “4. It is common ground that whenever an election is interrupted by an Interim Order of this Court and finally the petition is dismissed, the election must proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted. This is the correct position in law consistently applied in all such situations. It should be so because when a process of election had commenced lawfully, was interrupted by an Interim Order granted in a case and ultimately the case is dismissed, the election process must continue, otherwise it amounts nullifying the calendar of events even if finally the challenge failed and such a consequence cannot be permitted. For these reasons, we answer the first question-as follows: "When any election is stayed by an Interim Order granted by a Court in any case and the case is finally dismissed, the election should proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted.” xxx xxx xxx 8. Before concluding, in view of our answer to the first question and in view of the complications which have arisen in this case, we consider it appropriate to state that whenever an election process is stayed pursuant to any Interim Order, the - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 Returning Officer should stop the process after any one of the events in the process of election. It is well known that every election consists of important events, such as, (i) Last date and time for filing nomination, (ii) Last date and time for withdrawal of nomination and the publication of final list of candidates, (iii) Date of poll, (iv) Counting of votes, and (v) Declaration of results. Therefore, it is also appropriate that whenever an Interim Order is granted, the Court granting the interim order should specify any one of the events after which the further events in the election should be stopped. However, even in the absence of such specification, an Interim Order of stay of election has to be implemented in a reasonable manner, which would not create practical difficulties for continuing the process, if and when it becomes necessary to do so in the light of the Final Order of the Court. Therefore, whenever the election is stayed the Returning Officer should stop further steps after any one of the events is completed and not in the middle and also make known to all concerned and in particular to the candidates, the stage at which the election process was stopped.”” - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 28. Similar view had been taken in the case of H.V. Prasanna (supra) wherein at paragraphs 14 and 18, the Division Bench of the Court passed the following order: “14. It is settled position of law that whenever the election process is interrupted by an order of the court on termination of the proceedings before the court, wherein the steps already taken for holding the election are not set aside or no direction is issued nullifying or infructuating the steps already taken to hold the election, the election process has to be continued from the stage at which it was interrupted provided the ultimate order of the court does not state otherwise. Provided further that as per the calendar of events issued for holding the election, at least the first stage of receiving the nomination paper had been completed by the time the interim order was either communicated or brought to the notice of the authority conducting the election. In the instant case, the first stage of the calendar of events viz., the receipt of the nomination papers was over by the time the interim order was brought to the notice of the Election Officer. The writ appeal was ultimately dismissed on 2-2-1988. xxx xxx xxx 18. Even in Muthsami's case ((1988) 1 SCC 572: A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616) the Supreme Court has directed the Returning Officer to proceed with the election in accordance with law from the stage at which it was interrupted by the order of the High - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 Court. The direction issued by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1855/1987 to hold election to the office of the President and the Vice President of the CMC, Hassan, in accordance with law could only mean that the election process was to be continued from the stage it was interrupted by the interim order. The Division Bench was informed of the fact that the holding of election was stayed. This is clear from the earlier portion of para 15 of the order which is already reproduced. Para 15 starts with the following sentence: "By virtue of the interim order, holding of election in question was stayed. Consequently, it is necessary to issue a fresh direction."” 29. The interim order passed by this Court on 26.09.2025 in the present petition reads as under: “Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. Government Advocate is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5. Issue notice to respondents 4 and 6. Process fee to be paid within a week’s time. Petitioners counsel is directed to serve two sets of copies of Writ Petition along with Annexures to Government Advocate. Heard on interim relief. Counsel Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur., submits that the fourth respondent factory has published the booklet on 09.09.2025 and there are about 23,410 shareholders. The petitioners are also the - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 shareholders, however, their names are not reflected in the eligible Voters’ list. Counsel vehemently contends that the eligible Voter’s list was published on 07.09.2025 and a Notification is issued on 10.09.2025 and effected on 12.09.2025. Hence, there is a violation of Rule 13-D(3)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. Counsel therefore, submits that an interim order may be granted. A perusal of the Writ paper reflects that the eligible voters list is issued on 07.09.2025. However, the election process is commenced on 12.09.2025. Prima-facie, it appears that there is a violation of Rule 13-D(3)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. Under these circumstances, I deem it proper to issue an interim order as prayed for. Counsel Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur., submits that hand delivery may be ordered. Submission is noted. The Registry concerned is directed to issue hand delivery.” 30. Thus, prima facie accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had found that there was apparent violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 in commencing the process of election before expiry of fifteen clear days. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 31. Now in view of this Court having held that there is no violation of Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960, the writ petition fails. The same is liable to be dismissed. 32. The interim order was granted on 26.09.2025. As on the date of interim order, the calendar of events up to Sl.No.(ºÉZï) of Annexure-C have been completed. The process of elections has been interrupted at the stage of conducting of poll as per Sl.No.(L) of the calendar of events. Therefore, the Returning Officer shall commence and conclude left over process of election from the said stage. 33. Consequently, the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. ii) The Returning Officer shall commence the process of election from the stage where it was stopped. - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6054 WP No. 202986 of 2025 iii) The Returning Officer shall commence and conclude left over process of election from the stage of requirement of conducting polls as mentioned at Sl.No.(L) of the calendar of events at Annexure-C within an outer limit of 15 days from today. iv) The petitioners are at liberty to seek redressal of their grievance if any by raising dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if so advised. In view of disposal of petition, if any pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:PK