- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14768 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ANKALAMADAGU VEVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA ANKALA MADAGU CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (REG. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) 2. BHOOMI SHETTHALLI VEVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA BHUMI SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE GUDAMARANAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (REG. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) 3. OOLAVADI, VEVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA VALAVADI VILLAGE AND POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (REG. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 4. SHETTHALLI, VEVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA BHUMI SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (REG. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SARASWATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1, 2 AND 4; SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.3) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. REPTD, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION (BY ITS COMMISSIONER,) 3RD FLOOR, T.T.M.C. 'A' BLOCK K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 027. REP., BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, NO.01, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. RETURNING OFFICER KOLAR AND CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (K AND C D.C.C.B LTD.,) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DCC BANK ROAD, KOLAR TOWN-563 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 5. KOLAR AND CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (K AND C D.C.C.B LTD.,) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DCC BANK ROAD, KOLAR TOWN - 563 101. REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 6. G. CHANDRAREDDY S/O VENKARARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PRESIDENT, YENAMALAPADEI VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA, YENAMALAPADI CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125 (REG. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) 7. N.M.SUBBAREDDY S/O N.V.MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PRESIDENT, KONAPALLI VYAVASAYA SEVA SHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA KONAPALLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125 (REG. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7; SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 4; SRI. K.S.KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE NOTICE ON 12.05.2025 TO THE PETITIONERS AS INELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 13D (2-A) (I) (II) AND 20(2)B 4(A)(B) OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION HELD ON 28.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 12.05.2025 issued to them that they are ineligible to vote under Rule 13-D(2-A)(i)(ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules of 1960') and Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1959') and disallowing them from participating in the elections to the respondent No.5 scheduled on 28.05.2025. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to participate in the elections. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 2. (i) The petitioners contend that they are all Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and are entitled to send their delegates to the respondent No.5. They contend that the term of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 came to an end and hence, elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 for the period 2025-2030 was scheduled on 28.05.2025. The respondent No.4 was appointed as the returning officer to conduct elections. They contend that under Rule 13-D(5) of the Rules of 1960, it is the duty of the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No.5 to prepare (i) a draft list of eligible members or representatives or delegates with right to vote, (ii) a list of members whose repayments fall due before the date fixed for publication of final list of voters, (iii) a list of defaulters, (iv) a list of members/representatives, delegates who are not eligible, indicating the reasons for their ineligibility and submit them to the Election Officer along with the related records. They contend that under Rule 13-D(3) of the Rules of 1960, the Election Officer is bound to publish the draft list of eligible voters, a list of defaulters, a list of members whose repayment falls due before 15 days prior to the date of elections and call - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 for objections, if any and call upon the defaulting members to repay the amount to the Co-operative Society on or before 30 days prior to the date of the election and verify the voters list after payment by the defaulters and publish the final list of eligible voters 15 days prior to the date of the elections. (ii) They contend that the respondent No.4 issued a provisional/draft list of voters, which showed that out of total 1129 members only 504 were eligible to participate in the elections. They contend that they were shown as ineligible members in view of non-compliance of Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959 and Rule 13-D(2A)(i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1960. They contend that Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) has no object to be achieved and hence, they cannot be excluded from the democratic process of electing the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5. (iii) Since their names were included in the list of ineligible voters, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the inclusion of their names in the ineligible list of voters, on the ground that the procedure under Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960 was not followed. Therefore, they sought for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the list in so far as they are concerned and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to permit them to participate in the election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 scheduled on 28.05.2025. 3. This Court in terms of an interim order dated 27.05.2025, permitted the petitioners to cast their votes at the election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 scheduled on 28.05.2025 and directed the returning officer to keep their votes in a separate ballot box. The result of the election was to be declared after obtaining necessary orders from the Court. This Court in terms of an order dated 11.07.2025, directed the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 to place on record documents to show compliance of Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act, 1959. Accordingly the respondent No.5 has filed an affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer contending that the ineligibility of members was determined with reference to Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(b) of the Act of 1959 as the recovery was not proportionate. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 4 (i) The respondent No.5 has filed a synopsis of facts stating inter alia that it had issued notice to its Chintamani branch to furnish the list of defaulting primary societies, who were due to pay the loan. The Chintamani branch issued a list of defaulters as per its letter dated 31.03.2025. It contended that as per this list, the petitioner was due of Rs.6,54,98,000/- but had paid only Rs.1,91,70,000/-. Therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner No.1 on 07.04.2025 calling upon it to pay Rs.1,35,78,000/- so as to be eligible to vote at the elections. However, petitioner No.1 did not pay the amount and in view of Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(c) of the Act of 1959, petitioner No.1 was included in the ineligible voters list. Further, it failed to recover 50% of the outstandings and had failed to pay the share amount and therefore, was not eligible to vote at the election to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5, scheduled on 28.05.2025. (ii) Similarly, in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it contended that as per the list furnished by the Chintamani Branch, the petitioner No.2 was due of Rs.14,63,33,000/- but it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 had paid only a sum of Rs.4,61,60,000/-. The respondent No.5 issued a notice dated 07.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,007,000/-. However, the petitioner No.2 failed to pay the amount and therefore, the respondent No. 5 included the petitioner No. 2 in the ineligible list of voters. The petitioner No.2 was bound to pay 50% of the outstanding loan amount and since it was not paid by or before 12.05.2025, it was not eligible to vote at the elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5 scheduled on 28.05.2025. (iii) In so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, it contended that a notice was issued under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules of 1960 on 20.06.2024 calling upon the petitioner No.3 to file its objections if any. The petitioner No.3 had failed to recover 50% of the outstanding amount and had failed to pay the share amount and therefore, the respondent No. 5 included the petitioner No.3 in the ineligible list of voters for the elections scheduled on 28.05.2025. (iv) Further, as regards as petitioner No.4, it is contended that a notice under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 1960 was issued to the petitioner No.4 calling upon it to file objections, if any, within the stipulated time. However, the petitioner No.4 did not file any objections and it had not recovered 50% of the outstanding amount due and had failed to pay the share amount. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 included the petitioner No. 4 in the ineligible list of voters. The respondent No.5 has placed on record the notices referred above. 5. Applications in I.A.No.1/2025 and 4/2025 were filed by the President of Konapalli Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Konapalli and a Director of Yenamalapadi Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Yenamalapadi Village, Chintamani Taluk to come on record as additional respondents in this petition, which were allowed in terms of the order dated 12.06.2025. The applicants were brought on record as respondent Nos.6 and 7. 6. I.A.No.3.2025 is filed by the respondent No.6 to place on record additional facts. It is stated in I.A.No.3/2025 that petitioner No.1 was a defaulter as on the date of election and a notice dated 07.04.2025 was sent to it to pay a sum of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 Rs.1,35,72,000/- on or before 06.05.2025 but petitioner No.1 did not pay. Likewise, it is stated that petitioner No.2 was a defaulter and a notice was issued to it on 07.04.2025 to pay Rs.2,70,07,000/- on or before 06.05.2025 but it failed to pay the amount. It is thus contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being defaulters as on the date of the elections were not eligible to vote in view of Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959. As far as petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, it is stated that notice under Rule 13-D(2-A)(i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1960 was issued to them on 18.01.2024 and another notice was issued on 20.06.2024 as to why their names should not be included in the ineligible list of voters. However, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 did not raise any objection. After the procedure under Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960 was concluded, the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 approached the respondent No.2 for voting rights in the elections. The respondent No.2 without authority of law had passed an order dated 29.04.2025 directing the respondent No. 5 to issue the delegate forms to the petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Further, as regards the share amount payable, it is contended that as per the byelaws of respondent No. 5, the minimum share amount that each - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 member had to subscribe was Rs.1,00,000/-, but petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had paid only Rs.10,000/- each as on 23.05.2025 and therefore, they were not eligible to vote in view of Section 19 of the Act of 1959. 7. When this petition was taken up for final disposal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo on 04.09.2025 and has enclosed therewith certain documents, one of which is an Official Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.5 extending the period of repayment from 3 years to 5 years. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had submitted representations of even dated 09.04.2025 to the respondent No.5 stating therein that if the repayment schedule is taken as 5 years then the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had recovered more than more than 50% of the outstanding. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 purportedly addressed a letter dated 14.05.2025 offering to pay a sum of Rs.21,15,000/- which was the balance payable. Later, the petitioner No.3 is stated to have paid Rs.28,28,150/- on 23.05.2025 and Rs.14,70,000/- on 23.05.2025. Similarly, in respect of the petitioner No.3, the respondent No. 5 had issued an acknowledgement dated - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 23.05.2025 acknowledging that the petitioner No.3 had paid Rs.14,69,924 being 50% of the outstanding as on 31.03.2025. Likewise, the respondent No.5 had issued a Letter of Acknowledgement dated 23.05.2025 acknowledging that the petitioner No.4 had paid a sum of Rs.28,28,146/- on 23.05.2025 towards 50% of the amount due as on 31.03.2025. 8. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, if the Official Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 was taken into account, then the repayment schedule was extended from 3 years to 5 years in respect of loans that were due as on 24.02.2023. He contends that if the benefit of this Official Memorandum is given to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, then they have recovered more than 50% of the outstanding and have also paid 50% of the outstanding payable to the respondent No. 5. He therefore, contends that the basis on which the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were included in the ineligible voters list was thoroughly unjust and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with. As regards petitioner Nos.3 and 4, he contends that they have paid 50% of the outstanding before - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 the date of elections and hence, their names ought to have been included in the eligible voters list. 9. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submitted that the petitioners have all incurred disqualification under Section 20(2)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959 and appropriate notices were issued. He contends that the petitioners were bound to pay 50% of the outstanding within 15 days prior to the date of elections and since the same is not done, the petitioners are not eligible to participate in the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5. He also contends that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have paid the amount subsequent to the time granted for payment and hence, they were not entitled to become eligible, as the ineligibility arose soon after they failed to pay the amount as per the notice issued by the respondent No.5. Therefore, he contends that the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the list of ineligible voters, is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the ineligibility of the members of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 the respondent No.5 has to be considered with reference to the date of elections. He submits that under Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959, if the members fail to pay 50% of its total due for the co-operative year immediately before the co-operative year during which the meeting or election is held or who fails to pass on to the financing bank the credit 50% of the demand or the entire portion of the recovered amount of the demand of the financing bank 15 days prior to the date of the general meeting or the date of election, such member is deemed to be ineligible to vote at the elections. He contends that in the instant case, the respondent No.5 had issued appropriate notices to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 calling upon them to pay the amount 15 days prior to the date of the election. He contends that since the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had failed to pay the amount, they were rightly included in the ineligible voters list. He also contends that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 had paid the amount admittedly after the time prescribed and hence, they were also not eligible to vote at the elections. He therefore, contends that no interference is warranted in this petition. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents. 12. Before the case is taken up for consideration on merits, it is appropriate to first note that though the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 5 was held on 28.05.2025 and the petitioners were permitted to cast their votes, the results of the election is not declared. 13. For the purposes of this petition, it is relevant to note Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959 and the same is extracted below. "20. Votes of members.- (1) xxxxxxx (2) The following shall not have the right to vote at a general meeting or an election of the members of the board of the co-operative society in which they are members, namely:— (a) to (a-v) xxxxxxxxx (b) a co-operative society,— - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 (i) to (iii) xxxxxxx (iv) whose principal object is to advance loans and whose percentage of recovery is,- (a) less than fifty percent of its total demand for the Co-operative year immediately preceding the Co-operative year during which the meeting or election is held or; (b) which fails to pass on to the financing bank or the credit agency, as the case may be, fifty percent of the demand or the entire portion of the recovered amount of the demand of the financing bank or credit agency, whichever is higher, at least fifteen days before the date of the general meeting or the date of election, after a notice of not less than thirty days in this regard has been issued to that society" 14. Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960 deals with the preparation of electoral rolls and calendar of events and for the purpose of this writ petition, it is Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules of 1960, which are relevant and the same is extracted below. "13-D. Preparation of Electoral Rolls and calendar of events. (1) xxxxxx - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 (2-A) The election officer shall take steps for publication of voter list who are not eligible to vote in the following manner, namely. - (i) for publication of draft ineligible electoral list, the chief executive of every cooperative society shall prepare notice in respect of members not attending three out of the last five annual general body meetings and members not utilizing such minimum services or facilities in a co-operative year as specified in the bye laws for three consecutive cooperative years. (ii) The chief executive of every co-operative society shall send above prepared notice to all ineligible members, fifteen days prior to six months to the date of election of the board by registered post and an opportunity shall be given to such member to file their objections, if any within fifteen days from the date of notice. (iii) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to the election officer along with their objections and also produce the records pertaining to absence from general body meeting with attendance and services utilized by members. He has to produce the records for having sent the notice along with acknowledgement to the election officer within thirty - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 days from the date of notice as specified by the election officer. (iv) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall state in his notice that the ineligible voter can appear before the election officer between thirty days to sixty days from the date of notice to get the remedy. (v) The election officer has to hear and dispose the objections filed by the ineligible voters within sixty days from the days of submission of objections from such voters. (vi) The final list of ineligible voters shall be published on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election." 15. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, does not even faintly allege the non-compliance of Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960 in excluding the petitioners from the list of eligible voters or in including the names of the petitioners in the ineligible list of voters. On the contrary, the grounds urged in the writ petition are in support of the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960 as well as Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959. The only tenable ground urged by the petitioners is that - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 if Section 20(2)(b)(vi) and (v) of the Act of 1959 is given effect to, then 50% of the members would be disqualified. A perusal of the synopsis filed by the respondent No.5 goes to show that appropriate notices under Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1959 was issued to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and that they failed to pay the amount within the time prescribed. There is not even a rejoinder to the synopsis filed by the respondent No. 5 wherein it is stated that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had failed to recover 50% of the outstanding and had also failed to pay the minimum share amount as prescribed under the byelaws of the respondent No.5. The synopsis also refers to notices issued under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules of 1960 to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Likewise, the respondent No.5 has placed on record the notices issued to the petitioners Nos.3 and 4 calling upon them to pay the outstanding dues. The documents produced by the petitioners categorically indicate that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 had deposited the amounts on 23.05.2025, which was much later than the notices issued under Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 16. In so far as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, though it is contended that as per the official endorsement, they had recovered more than 50% of the amount due from the members, it is not tenable as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had failed to file their objections to the notice issued under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules of 1960. 17. This Court would not sit in appeal over the inclusion of the name of petitioners in the ineligible voters list. All this Court would examine is whether the process prescribed in including the members in the ineligible voters list was followed or not. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, then no indulgence can be shown and if the answer is in the negative, then appropriate remedial measures would be ordered. 18. It is now settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in H.S.Raju Vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2022) 4 AKR 775] in matters relating to inclusion of members in the ineligible list, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to approach the authority under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act of 1959. Nonetheless, since the documents produced by the respondent No.5 established that the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39076 WP No. 14768 of 2025 petitioners were not entitled to be included in the list of eligible members to vote at the elections, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners in this petition. 19. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 20. The returning officer is directed to declare the results of the election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 held on 28.05.2025. 21. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57